Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Ct Cases / 2096/2024 Col Harish Chandra Joshi Vs. State Of Nct Of
Delhi
08.10.2025
Present: Ld. APP for the state.
Advocate for the complainant in person.
The present application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
has been filed by the complainant, Col. Harish Chandra Joshi,
seeking a direction to the SHO, P.S. Naraina, to register an FIR and
investigate the alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC
against the respondent, Lt. Col. (Retd.) D.S. Patil.
 The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the respondent, known
to him for several years, induced him to invest large sums of money
under two different pretexts. Firstly, it is alleged that in June 2018,
the respondent sought an advance of 1 lakh for purchase of a plot	₹
of land measuring 6000 sq. ft. in Majuli Island, Assam, promising
execution of sale deed upon full payment, but failed to deliver
possession or refund the money. Secondly, in September 2020, the
respondent again approached him with an investment proposal in a
business venture titled Col. Patil’s Consultancy, assuring profits of
15% per month and repayment within three months. Relying on
this assurance, the complainant transferred 35 lakh into the	₹
personal SBI account of the respondent and another 25 lakh into	₹
the current account of Col. Patil’s Consultancy. Though a few
instalments totaling 14 lakh were repaid, the remaining amount	₹
was allegedly misappropriated. It is contended that the accused
thereby committed criminal breach of trust and cheating.
 Pursuant to directions of this Court, an Action Taken Report (ATR)
was filed by the Investigating Officer, SI Mukesh Yadav of P.S.
-- 1 of 3 --
Naraina, on 10.07.2024. As per the report, both parties were
examined during inquiry. The respondent admitted receipt of funds
but explained that the money was invested by several persons
including the complainant and his wife in a renewable energy
project run by M/s M & M Consultancy through a duly executed
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 22.07.2021. It is
further stated that the respondent himself was one of the investors
and had filed a case under Section 138 NI Act against M/s M & M
Consultancy after cheques issued by that company bounced. The
respondent produced copies of the MOU, the notary record, and
related documents showing that post-dated cheques were issued
by M/s M & M Consultancy as security for the investors.
 The ATR further notes that the complainant was unable to produce
any written agreement or independent document to show that the
respondent had individually guaranteed repayment or returns. He
admitted that some investment transactions were made jointly with
his wife, Mrs. Sushma Joshi, who had authorised another investor,
Mrs. Rupali Benalkar, through a GPA to sign the MOU on her
behalf. The inquiry confirmed the existence of the said GPA and the
MOU.
 Upon perusal of the ATR, it emerges that the dispute essentially
relates to a failed investment and sharing of profits in a joint
business venture. The funds were transferred through bank
channels, formal agreements were executed, and cheques were
issued by a third-party company, M/s M & M Consultancy. The
material on record does not indicate any dishonest or fraudulent
intention at the inception on part of the respondent. At best, the
-- 2 of 3 --
allegations disclose a civil dispute regarding recovery of money or
performance of contractual obligations, which does not attract
penal provisions of Sections 406 or 420 IPC.
 It is settled law that for an offence under Section 420 IPC, there
must be deception at the very inception of the transaction.
Similarly, under Section 406 IPC, it must be shown that the
property was entrusted with dishonest intention and later
misappropriated. In the present case, the complainant’s own
pleadings show that the investments were made voluntarily,
through formal documents, and with knowledge of other investors.
The failure of a business venture or non-return of money in such
circumstances may constitute breach of contract, but not a
cognizable criminal offence.
 Having considered the complaint, documents, and the ATR, I am of
the considered view that no cognizable offence is made out against
the respondent warranting registration of FIR. The complainant is
at liberty to seek remedy before the appropriate civil forum or, if so
advised, to lead evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in a private
complaint.
 Accordingly, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. stands
dismissed.
Be put up for PSE on 27.03.2026.
(Ankit Garg)
JMFC-08, PHC, ND
08.10.2025
-- 3 of 3 --