Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Ct Cases 3433/2024
MAYAR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT Vs. NARESH
CHANDRA NEHRA AND ORS. (Parliament Street)
09.12.2024
Present: Ld. Counsel for complainant through VC.
1. The present application has been moved by the
Complainant under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 (CrPC), seeking directions to the concerned police
station for the registration of an FIR and investigation in relation
to the allegations made against the accused persons for the
commission of offences under Sections 403, 409, 418, 424, 427,
and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. The Complainant has stated that it is a private limited company
that availed a term loan and mortgaged a property in Gurugram.
The Complainant further alleges that, following the attachment
and possession of the mortgaged property by the accused Indian
Bank, valuable movable assets were stolen and misappropriated
by the accused persons during their possession and custodianship
of the property. Despite repeated requests and complaints, the
accused persons failed to return the missing assets and have not
provided satisfactory answers regarding the alleged loss.
3. The Complaint further states that the missing items include
valuable machinery, electrical equipment, and other items
amounting to a loss of approximately Rs. 5,34,55,350/- (Rupees
Five Crores Thirty-Four Lacs Fifty-Five Thousand and Three
Hundred and Fifty), and the current replacement cost is Rs.
9,68,57,786/- (Rupees Nine Crores Sixty-Eight Lacs Fifty-Seven
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty-Six).
4. Ld. Counsel for Complainant also points out that despite its
best efforts, the complainant company is unable to collect
adequate evidence on its own.It is settled law that when the
complainant has no means or access to independently gather
evidence, it is imperative that law enforcement authoritiesto
conduct a thorough investigation to ensure that justice is served.
Ld. Counsel for complainant has further argued that all the
formalities for loan and the mortgage were carried out in the
jurisdiction of Parliament Street Police station ,New Delhi and
the Bank was liable to account for the property in the said
jurisdiction and hence this court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate
the present application.
5. I have carefully gone through the application, the
accompanying documents, and the allegations made by the
Complainant. The offences mentioned in the application, if true,
constitute cognizable offences, and there appears to be a prima
facie case for investigation .The assistance of the police is
required for proper investigation, collection of evidence, and
ensuring the recovery of the missing movable assets.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government
of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1 has held that registration of an
FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC if the information
discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, and if the
police fail to act, the Magistrate may direct registration of an FIR
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
under Section 156(3) CrPC.
7. Regarding the jurisdiction of this Court, it is relevant to
address the question of territorial jurisdiction given that the
mortgaged property in question is situated at village Rakha &
Nimoth,Gurugram(Haryana) . The complainant had mortgaged
its property situated at village Rakha &Nimoth, Gurugram
(Haryana) to obtain a loan from Indian Bank , and all the
formalities, including the mortgage of property appear to have
been carried out in the jurisdiction of Parliament Street Police
Station. The authorities were responsible for accounting for the
mortgaged property in same jurisdiction after the OTS amount
was paid by the complainant company. According to Section
181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an offence of criminal
misappropriation or breach of trust can be inquired into or tried
in the place where the offence was committed or where the
property was required to be returned or accounted for.
8. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the
circumstances of the case, it is in the interest of justice that a
proper investigation is conducted by the police to ascertain the
facts, recover any misappropriated assets, and identify the
responsible parties.
9. In view of the above, the application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. is allowed.
10. The Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station Parliament
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
Street, is directed to register an FIR on the basis of the Complaint
and the allegations made therein.
11. The SHO is further directed to proceed with the investigation
of the case in accordance with the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and file a compliance report on 17.12.2024
12. The SHO shall ensure that all necessary steps are taken to
preserve evidence, including inspection of the mortgaged
property and taking statements from relevant witnesses, and any
other actions deemed necessary for the investigation.
13. A copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned Police
Station for compliance.
(Sahil Monga)
JMFC-07/PHC/ND/09.12.2024
-- 4 of 4 --