Imran Beigh vs UT of J&K and another

There being almost common factual and legal questions involved, all the four clubbed petitions, are proposed to dispose of, by this common judgment.

Petitioners, through the medium of their separate petitions, seek quashing of FIR No. 21/2021 registered at Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu on 14.06.2021 for the commission of offences punishable under sections 420/465/467/468/471 IPC and section 88 of Information and Technology Act along with all consequential criminal proceedings initiated thereunder.

Petitioner-Imran Beigh, while setting out the facts, submits that his company, namely, Beigh Construction Company Private Limited (BCC), entered into a Joint Venture Agreement on 13.03.2014 with respondent no. 2, Lalit Aggarwal’s M/S Amritanshu Infra Structure and Management Private Limited (AIMPL) to undertake construction work for a tunnel project awarded by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to IL&FS Transportation Networks Limited (TFNL); that this tunnel project was on Chenani-Nashri section of NHAI from 89 KM to 130 KM including a parallel escape tunnel; that a formal Concession Agreement had been signed between NHAI and CNTL on 28.06.2010; that prior to the agreement dated 08.03.2014, AIMPL and BCC signed an agreement dated 01.12.2013 in the backdrop of a contract that Joint Venture had signed with IVRCL; that Joint Venture of BCC and AIMPL was awarded certain works in the CNTL Project by ITNL and vide agreement dated 08.03.2014, the roles of each of the parties thereto i.e., BCC and AIMPL were clearly mandated.

It was alleged that respondent No. 2-Lalit Aggarwal, however, went to the extent of notarizing a Joint Venture Agreement in January, 2015 before a legal notary Dilawar Singh Jasrotia, which he had forged and misused the said forged Joint Venture Agreement, to make wrongful gains to his company; that the disputes between the parties were settled in the first settlement agreement dated 12.06.2016; that the company of the respondent No. 2 diverted funds of the Joint Venture through its sister concerns-M/S Aggarwal Equipment Supplier, M/S Shree Balaji Engineering, M/S Shree Balaji Pigments, M/S Lalit Aggarwal and Shree Nath Industries etc, however, the moment the petitioner realized the malicious act of the respondent No. 2, he immediately approached the Crime Branch, Jammu and lodged his complaint on 05.10.2016, which conducted a preliminary enquiry, sought various information from BCC including all correspondence exchanged between the parties, authenticity of Joint Venture Agreement in question, copy of the audit report of the Joint Venture, work order from ITNL etc and on appreciating the genuineness of grievances of the petitioner, a formal FIR No. 20/2018 was lodged against AIMPL and its individual promoters/Directors on 09.08.2018.

It is further pleaded in the petition that as a counter blast to the aforesaid FIR registered with the Crime Branch, the respondent No. 2, through his son Mr. Sudhanshu Aggarwal, filed a counter case with Police Station, Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi on 19.08.2019, wherein a case was registered vide FIR No. 0168 on 19.08.2019 under sections 406/420/468/471/120-B IPC against the petitioners herein for malafide and malicious acts; that the petitioner had revealed his defence in the investigation being conducted and he has strong reasons to believe that the case registered in New Delhi will stand as ‘not proved’.

It was next alleged that apprehending the fate of the FIR, the respondent No. 2 desperately pressurized the petitioner by filing a case before NCLT, Chandigarh where he remained unsuccessful; that he also initiated arbitration proceedings against the petitioner and the arbitration proceedings are pending before the appointed arbitrator; that being more desperate as the adjudication of the dispute through arbitration is consuming time and as a counter blast and in order to spite the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 lodged a false and fabricated complaint before the court of learned City Judge, Jammu and obtained orders for registration of FIR against the petitioners.

The impugned FIR against the petitioners has been assailed on the grounds that the Crime Branch had no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter in terms of SRO 202; that the impugned FIR is the counter blast to the earlier FIR lodged by the petitioner Imran Beigh before the Crime Branch in the year 2018 against the respondent No. 2-complainant in this case.

The other petitioners have also submitted that they, being the Auditor, Chartered Accountant and Accountant, have no role, whatsoever, so as to implicate them in the case on hand as it is, at the most, a commercial dispute between the petitioner-Imran Beigh and respondent No. 2-Lalit Aggarwal, as such, the petitioners Tarun Khanna, Mohit Singh and Rahul Sharma have been unnecessarily implicated in the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Imran Beigh has vehemently argued that the impugned FIR has been registered with the Crime Branch with regard to a dispute relating to a contract and withholding of boomers by the petitioner’s Beigh Construction Company-a partner in the Joint Venture; that the work allotted and executed to the Joint Venture between the companies of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 and their joint Venture had executed the work within one district of Ramban and, as such, the cheating, as alleged against the petitioner herein, was restricted to one district only and the Crime Branch is competent to investigate a case, where such an offence is committed in more than one districts in terms of SRO 202, as such, the Crime Branch had no jurisdiction to register the case and to investigate the matter. He has further argued that the impugned FIR is the counter blast to the earlier FIR lodged by the petitioner against the respondent No. 2, with the same Crime Branch, as such, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners- Tarun Khanna, Mohit Singh and Rahul Sharma argued that they had performed their professional duties and have been unnecessarily dragged regarding a dispute with regard to balance sheet and interest audit with reference to some suspicious entries and they cannot be stated to have entered into any criminal conspiracy with the alleged main accused and prayed that their petitions be allowed and the impugned FIR be quashed qua these petitioners.

Learned Sr. AAG while appearing from the respondent No. 1, ex adverso, has argued that the Crime Branch had registered the case on the direction of learned Magistrate and that an investigating agency cannot refuse to register a court ordered case. She, however, argued that none of the petitioners have chosen to challenge the order passed by the learned Magistrate whereunder the impugned FIR had been registered and in that absence, the challenge to impugned FIR was not permissible; that on the basis of the complaint, the Crime Branch had examined the matter and found that all the petitioners are involved in the commission of the alleged offences. Learned Sr. AAG, in support of her contentions, has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in H.N. Rishbud & Inder Singh Vs. State of Delhi AIR 1955 SC 196 and finally prayed that the petitions of all the petitioners be dismissed, permitting the Crime Branch to carry on the investigation so as to take it to the logical end.

Learned senior counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 2 argued that the petitioner-Imran Beigh, who is the main accused in this case, had an intention from inception for cheating; that the joint venture agreements had been executed on 01.12.2013 and 12.01.2015 at Jammu, notorized in Kathua and the works had been executed in Ramban District. He further argued that the offices of both the petitioner-Imran Beigh and the respondent No. 2-complainant are situated in Jammu and their bank accounts were operated in Jammu and Kathua districts in furtherance of the cheating, as such, the cheating cannot be stated to have been restricted to one district of Ramban, therefore, Crime Branch was competent enough to register and investigate the case, in terms of SRO 202. He further argued that the impugned FIR cannot be quashed and assuming the court decides Crime Branch has no jurisdiction, at the most, can be treated as zero FIR, protecting the investigation carried so far and the investigation can be transferred to the local police station. He further submits that under section 156(2) of Cr.P.C, the proceedings conducted so far by the Crime Branch are required to be preserved.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, finally submits that both the cases lodged by the petitioner-Imran Beigh and respondent No. 2-Lalit Aggarwal against each other, before the Crime Branch, Jammu are being investigated by the same agency, as such, it will be in the interest of justice that the investigation is carried out by the same agency.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter.

Having regard to the factual aspects of the case as emerged from the pleadings and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that companies of the petitioner-Imran Beigh and respondent No. 2-Lalit Aggarwal, had entered into a Joint Venture Agreement in the year 2013 and then in the year 2015 to execute certain construction works of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) in Ramban District. Both the companies had their offices in Jammu and their bank accounts were also in different branches at Jammu and Kathua. The agreements were executed in Jammu, notarized in Kathua and the works wherein disputes arose had been executed in Ramban district.

It appears from this factual background that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners were across more than one districts and not restricted to one district, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Crime Branch was not authorized to investigate the case in view of the cheating not having been taken place in more than one district, is factually misplaced, particularly so, when the petitioner-Imran Beigh had himself already approached the Crime Branch in the year 2016, regarding which a case had been registered against the respondent No. 2 with regard to same agreements between the parties.

The second contention that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Mr. Imran Beigh that the son of the respondent No. 2 had already lodged a case against him and other petitioners before the Economic Offences Wing of Delhi Police in New Delhi and the counter blast to his earlier FIR with the Crime Branch, Jammu, the case cannot be investigated and is liable to be quashed. It is a settled legal proposition that, on the same allegations, different cases cannot be registered. On perusal and comparative analysis of the FIRs registered by the respondent No. 2 before the Crime Branch in Jammu, and by his son in Delhi against the petitioners herein, it is found that some of the offences alleged therein are overlapping. However, simply for this reason, impugned FIR cannot be quashed and the concern of the petitioners can be addressed by directing the Crime Branch to not investigate into those offences regarding the same facts, which have already been investigated by the Economic Offences Wing of Delhi Police and the chargesheet is stated to have been laid before the court of law so that the petitioners are not made to suffer, from double jeopardy.

So far as the contentions of the other petitioners that they being Auditor, Charted Accountant and Accountant had not committed any offence, as they cannot be blamed to have abetted the main accused-petitioner Imran Beigh, as they had simply performed their professional duties while examining the accounts and Balance Sheet etc. of the Joint Venture. These are all factual aspects of the matter and require detailed examination of the record by the investigating agency vis-à-vis, accusation made in the FIR and the court cannot conduct a mini trial in the matter. On their aforesaid plea, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed.

For the foregoing reasons and observations made hereinabove, the petitions are found to be without any merit and substance and are, accordingly, dismissed along with connected application(s).

A copy of this judgment be placed across each of the file.