Order 13

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 46
CC No.2187-2023
SURUPA KAR Vs. NEW MEDIA GURU INDIA PVT LTD AND ORS
/2023 (Subzi Mandi)
13.10.2026
Present: Complainant is appearing through VC.
Ms. Anjali Rawat, Ld. Counsel for the complainant through Vc.
Matter is listed for orders on application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC.
Be passed over till 4.30 p.m. for orders on application u/s 156(3)
Cr.PC.
At 04:35 pm.
Present: None.
Vide this order, I shall decide the present application filed u/S 156(3)
CrPC for issuance of direction to the police to register an FIR and investigate the
allegations arising from the employment of the complainant and the encashment of
a cheque for Rs. 90,000/-.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant was
appointed by proposed accused no. 1 as a content writer by a letter dated
06.09.2021, with a gross annual CTC of Rs. 3,60,000/-. She subsequently received
an appointment letter dated 01.05.2022 from proposed accused no. 2 and became
employed with NMG Digital Pvt. Ltd. According to her, proposed accused no. 2
had already confirmed her services by a letter dated 06.03.2022 after assessing her
performance during six months of probation. She explains that, although its
appointment letter was issued after the confirmation letter, she had been reporting
to proposed accused no. 2 from the beginning. She also relies on an appreciation
certificate issued by proposed accused no. 2 for being the Time and Attendance
Exemplary Performer in April 2022.
-- 1 of 10 --
Proposed accused no. 1 is New Media Guru Pvt. Ltd., having its
registered office at House No. 4760, Free India, Cycle Service, Roshanara Road,
New Delhi-110007. Proposed accused no. 2 is NMG Digital Pvt. Ltd., whose
registered office is also stated to be at 4760, Roshanara Road, New Delhi-110007.
The complaint names Mohit Maheshwari, Rohit Maheshwari and Vandana
Maheshwari as directors, with DINs 02156381, 02577674 and 02156451
respectively.
It is further alleged that after about one year of employment, she sent
an email dated 30.09.2022 to Mohit Maheshwari, a director, tendering her
resignation for better career prospects. She alleges that he verbally assured her of
an increment and career growth within the company and promised that written
confirmation would follow. Believing these assurances, she withdrew her
resignation by email dated 11.10.2022. According to the complainant, the
assurances were not fulfilled despite persistent follow-up. Her requests for
meetings with Mohit Maheshwari were not acted upon, her emails remained
unanswered, and she felt ridiculed. She also states that she submitted her PRA
under pressure. The complaint does not expand that expression. On 01.12.2022,
she referred to her earlier emails dated 30.09.2022 and 11.10.2022, again
submitted her resignation and requested an expedited exit. Her case is that the
resignation of 30.09.2022 should be treated as the operative intimation for
calculating the notice period.
It is further stated that proposed accused Mohit Maheshwari
acknowledged her email on 01.12.2022 and asked the HR department to initiate
the necessary process. On 02.12.2022, Ms. Divya Sharma of HR informed her that
her last working day would be 28.02.2023. The complainant objects that this date
was fixed without discussing the matter with her. In reply on 02.12.2022, she
sought release by 14.12.2022 for personal and professional reasons and offered
adjustment of any shortfall from her dues. She maintains that this request was
consistent with her appointment terms. She specifically alleges that the company
-- 2 of 10 --
ignored this email and erased it from its records. Several further emails were
exchanged with HR explaining her position and grievances, but, according to her,
no heed was paid. On 28.12.2022, Ms. Megha of HR informed her by email that
her employment had been terminated and that she would have to pay for the notice
period and any loss suffered by the company.
It has been further submitted by the complainant that under proposed
accused no. 2’s policy, she had submitted an undated cheque as caution money
when joining in 2021. She alleges that proposed accused no. 1 encashed it without
prior intimation. On 04.01.2023, her bank informed her that Rs. 90,000/- had been
withdrawn. She emailed HR that day and received a reply dated 05.01.2023
acknowledging encashment. She has contended that the appointment letter
contains no stipulation requiring deposit of money or authorising this use of the
cheque. She further objects that she was employed with NMG Digital Pvt. Ltd.,
whereas the proceeds were credited to New Media Guru Pvt. Ltd., which,
according to her, had no right to receive them. She characterises this as fraud,
cheating, breach of trust and misuse of the arrangements governed by labour and
company law. She has alleged that the companies and their directors acted
dishonestly and bore a grudge against her because she resigned.
It has also been alleged by the complainant that the company acted
fraudulently towards employees and had no grievance redressal cell or committee
for complaints concerning harassment, fraud or matters under the Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act,
2013. She attributes responsibility for constituting the necessary bodies to the
directors under the applicable enactments and specifically alleges non-constitution
of the Internal Complaints Committee under the 2013 Act. She states that
proposed accused Mohit Maheshwari’s constant scrutiny affected her productivity
and made the workplace uncomfortable. She relies on a legal notice dated
11.01.2023, the reply dated 19.01.2023 and reminders dated 28.02.2023. Her
grievance is that the amount was not returned within fifteen days or thereafter. She
-- 3 of 10 --
then complained to the SHO, Police Station Subzi Mandi, on 10.06.2023, vide DD
No. 38-A, and to the DCP, North District, on 04.09.2023. She alleges that neither
approach resulted in the required action, leaving her to seek a fair investigation or
inquiry from the Court.
ATR was filed by Enquiry Officer SI Ranjana. It has been stated in
the report that the complainant stopped attending work after 14.12.2022 because
she had a better opportunity. It also records her objection to the absence of a
contractual provision for depositing money and her allegation about the absence of
a committee under the 2013 Act. Further, the complainant joined the enquiry and
her detailed statement was recorded. She identified her workplace as the third
floor of Augusta Point, Golf Course Road, Parshvnath Exotica, Sector 53,
Gurugram. She stated that HR had not acknowledged her initial resignation and
that proposed accused Mohit Maheshwari had orally promised an increment. She
also said that she had asked an HR employee named Ashish to return her cheque
and had been told it would be returned later. The report places that request before
14.01.2022. The report further attributes to her a statement that she had not
discussed encashment of the cheque with any company authority in the emails
exchanged. This is not fully consistent with the complaint’s specific reference to
her email dated 04.01.2023 and HR’s acknowledgment dated 05.01.2023. The
actual emails and her explanation would be relevant before any adverse conclusion
is drawn from this difference. She also told the police that she posted honest
reviews about the company on the Glassdoor website, for which proposed accused
Mohit Maheshwari scolded her. She wished to approach the committee under the
2013 Act but could not do so because no such committee existed. Her notice dated
11.01.2023 sought salary for fourteen days of December 2022 and refund of Rs.
90,000/-. The demands were declined. She supplied the police with a bank
statement showing the debit and the company’s reply to her legal notice.
Further, the EO issued notice to the company. Its representative, Mr.
Balwant Mehra, joined the enquiry and gave a written statement. He stated that the
-- 4 of 10 --
complainant’s monthly salary was Rs. 30,000/- and that the cheque for Rs.
90,000/- represented three months’ salary and had been taken when she joined.
According to him, the entire internet marketing team was transferred from New
Media Guru India Pvt. Ltd. to NMG Digital Pvt. Ltd. on 01.05.2022. He described
the two entities as group companies with common directors. He further stated that
the complainant resigned on 30.09.2022, withdrew that resignation on 11.10.2022
and resigned again on 01.12.2022. His version was that she stopped attending
office around 14.12.2022 and refused to serve the required three-month notice
period, leading to encashment of what he called her bond cheque. He has further
stated that the company first issued a notice on 10.01.2023 demanding Rs.
5,00,000/- in damages, which the complainant denied. He acknowledged her
notices dated 11.01.2023 and 28.02.2023 and stated that replies were sent on
19.01.2023 and 02.03.2023 respectively. He asserted that a committee under the
2013 Act existed and that supporting documents were furnished.
The report refers to paragraph 7(b) of the appointment letter
concerning termination and retirement. As reproduced, it permits termination by
the company after confirmation on ninety days’ notice or payment of three
months’ salary. The separately reproduced resignation clause requires the
employee to give three months’ prior notice, permits the company to consider
earlier release in its discretion having regard to the assigned work, and refers to
extension of notice if the employee does not cooperate in completing assigned
tasks.
It is expressly noted in the report that neither appointment letter states
how three months’ salary is to be recovered if the notice period is not served. The
report records the company’s calculation that twelve days were served from
02.12.2022, against the complainant’s claim of seventy-five days reckoned from
30.09.2022. It has been concluded in the report that the dispute concerns labour
and company law and that no police action is presently made out, while stating
that any direction of the Court would be complied with.
-- 5 of 10 --
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant
has first narrated the abovestated facts, which are not repeated as already
reproduced in brief, above. It has been further submitted on behalf of the
complainant that as per the data of the two companies obtained from the website
of Ministry of Corporate Affiars, the two companies are different entities and the
cheques of the complainant has been misappropriated and misused by accused no.
1 company. It has been submitted that it is not clear as to how the cheque came to
be in possession of accused no. 1 company, while it was handed over to accused
no. 2 company by the complainant. It has been further submitted that there has
been no mention of the aspect of security cheque and its encashment in the
employement contract. It has been submitted that these aspects need to be
investigated by the police and are not within the reach of the complainant.
Submissions heard. Record perused, carefully.
It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case
titled
M/S. Skipper Beverages Pvt Ltd. vs State, 92 (2001) DLT 217 has held that:
“10. Section 156(3) of the Code aims at curtailing and
controlling the arbitrariness on the part of the police
authorities in the matter of registration of FIRs and taking
up investigations, even in those cases where the same are
warranted. The Section empower the Magistrate to issue
directions in this regard but this provision should not be
permitted to be misused by the complainants to get police
cases registered even in those cases which are not very
serious in nature and the Magistrate himself can hold
enquiry under Chapter XV and proceed against the accused
if required. Therefore, a Magistrate, must apply his mind
before passing an order under Section 156(3) of the Code
and must not pass these orders mechanically on the mere
asking by the complainant. These powers ought to be
exercised primarily in those cases where the allegations are
quite serious or evidence is beyond the reach of
complainant or custodial interrogation appears to be
necessary for some recovery of article or discovery of fact.”
-- 6 of 10 --
The scope of Section 156(3) CrPC is well settled and the power to
direct registration of FIR is discretionary and is to be exercised judiciously, only
where the allegations prima facie disclose commission of a cognizable offence and
police investigation is necessary
The description of the matter as a labour or company dispute by the
Enquiry Officer is not decisive. A transaction arising from employment may also
disclose an offence. Equally, use of the expressions fraud, cheating or breach of
trust does not dispense with examining the alleged acts and the evidence needed to
establish them. The question here is whether a full police investigation should
presently be ordered. Cheating under Section 420 IPC requires dishonest
inducement of the relevant kind, with dishonest intention when the inducement
operates. Criminal breach of trust under Section 405, punishable under Section
406, concerns entrusted property or dominion over it followed by dishonest
misuse contrary to law or the governing obligation. Section 403 concerns
dishonest misappropriation or conversion of movable property. Thus, breach of an
employment promise and dishonest use of an entrusted cheque raise distinct
questions. Failure to establish initial deception would not, by itself, answer an
allegation of later dishonest misuse.
Further, the complainant’s account of the unfulfilled increment and
career-growth assurances, unanswered communications and pressure is relevant to
the background. However, non-fulfilment of an assurance alone does not establish
that it was dishonestly made. She can give evidence of the words used, the
circumstances in which she withdrew her resignation and the subsequent
communications. These matters are within her direct knowledge and do not
presently require discovery through police investigation.
The allegation concerning the cheque deserves separate attention. The
fact that it was voluntarily handed over as security does not give its holder
unlimited authority to encash it. Nor does a common set of directors automatically
authorise one company to receive money claimed by another. The assertion of the
-- 7 of 10 --
complainant that she entrusted the cheque to proposed accused no. 2, the credit to
proposed accused no. 1 and the absence of an express recovery mechanism must
therefore be examined on evidence. The Court does not approve the encashment
merely because the company calls the instrument a bond cheque. At the same time,
the central transaction is identified. The complainant knows the companies, the
employment terms relied upon, the amount, the debit date and the relevant
correspondence. The report records both a bank statement supplied by her and the
company’s explanation for presenting the cheque. The immediate questions
concern the scope of the authority given, the effect of withdrawal of the first
resignation, the notice period actually due, the request for adjustment and the
identity and entitlement of the recipient. These questions can initially be examined
through her testimony and documentary evidence.
The quoted termination clause concerns termination by the employer.
It cannot automatically be read as an employee’s authorisation for encashment of a
security cheque. Conversely, the complainant’s offer to adjust a shortfall from her
dues does not, without examining its terms, establish consent to debit the full Rs.
90,000/-. The company must not be treated as having proved a three-month salary
entitlement, its claim for Rs. 5,00,000/- damages, or the lawfulness of the
deduction merely through its representative’s statement. Those issues remain open
for the appropriate proceedings.
The original cheque or its bank image, clearing particulars, account
credit and relevant corporate records may not all be in the complainant’s
possession. Physical possession of every document is not a prerequisite to
pursuing a complaint case. The concerned bank or other record custodian can be
summoned through the Court where legally permissible and necessary. No
presently identified feature of this transaction shows that tracing unknown
offenders, locating concealed proceeds or an immediate search and seizure is
required before the complainant can lead evidence. If the evidence later
-- 8 of 10 --
demonstrates a specific need for an inquiry or investigation under Section 202
CrPC, that question can be considered at the appropriate stage.
The allegation that the email dated 02.12.2022 was erased from
company records has also been considered. The complainant was its sender and
can place her available copy, associated correspondence and account of its
contents before the Court. The fact and circumstances of any deletion remain to be
proved. On the present material, that allegation does not establish why a full police
investigation is essential before examination of the available communications. The
Court is not accepting the alleged deletion as either proved or harmless.
The allegations of ridicule, constant scrutiny, reprimand for Glassdoor
reviews and absence of an Internal Complaints Committee are not overlooked. The
competing claims about the committee require evidence. Non-compliance with the
2013 Act may attract its own statutory remedies and consequences. Section 27(3)
of that Act classifies offences under it as non-cognizable. The facts presently
narrated do not specify conduct of a sexual nature constituting an independently
identified cognizable sexual offence. This observation does not decide whether the
employer complied with its statutory duties or foreclose an appropriate complaint
under that Act.
The ATR leaves the precise terms of the cheque arrangement,
corporate authority, disputed email and committee records insufficiently
explained. These gaps prevent wholesale acceptance of the company’s version.
They do not, in this case, make the complaint procedure ineffective. Likewise, the
inconsistency about the cheque-related emails and the date recorded for the
request to Ashish should be clarified through evidence, rather than used now to
discredit the complainant. Mere directorship also cannot substitute for evidence of
each individual’s role in the alleged offence.
The workplace of the complainant being Gurugram and the asserted
Delhi registered offices are noted. Registration of an office alone need not
-- 9 of 10 --
determine the place of every alleged offence; the places of entrustment,
presentation, receipt and accounting may be relevant. The present refusal of police
investigation is not founded on a final finding against territorial jurisdiction. The
necessary particulars may be placed on record in the complaint proceedings and
jurisdiction shall be considered in accordance with law.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present application under
Section 156(3) CrPC is accordingly dismissed. No direction for registration of an
FIR or investigation under that provision is issued. The complaint under Sections
190/200 CrPC shall remain pending and an opportunity is granted to the
complainant to lead pre-summoning evidence. Any necessity for proceedings
under Section 202 CrPC shall be considered at the appropriate stage in accordance
with law.
Put up for PSE on 16.12.2026.
(Preeti Rajoria)
JMFC-07/Central District
Delhi/13.10.2026
-- 10 of 10 --