Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Shri Ranjiv Talwar Vs. the State

Shri Ranjiv Talwar vs The State

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Delhi Decided Sep 04, 2003
~5 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/702268

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl. M. (M) No. 1997/2003
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438--Anticipatory bail--Case under Sections 406/420/468/471/34, IPC--Petitioner-company, a licensed dealer of Maruti Udyog Limited, indulged in business of sale and purchase of car--Petitioner inducing the complainant to invest her money in his company for purchase of cars, to...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 438; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 34; Indian Companies Act

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shri Ranjiv Talwar

Advocate Harish Malhotra, Adv

Respondent

The State

Advocate Pawan Sharma, Adv. and ; Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv. and ; Raje

Legal References

Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 438; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 34; Indian Companies Act
Reported In
108(2003)DLT172; 2003(71)DRJ526

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, 1973 - section 438--anticipatory bail--case under sections 406/420/468/471/34, ipc--petitioner-company, a licensed dealer of maruti udyog limited, indulged in business of sale and purchase of car--petitioner inducing the complainant to invest her money in his company for purchase of cars, to get instantaneous returns--complainant invested rs. 1,09,45,000/- by taking out her share in firm--petitioner maintained manipulated accounts and booking of the cars is not even reflected in the computer--neither the amount has been returned nor the cars have been delivered to her--no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. - - they induced her to invest money in his company for purchase of cars, which could be sold on profits, representing that it was hundred per cent safe investment and return of profit was instantaneous;.....to simultaneously ensure return of all post dated cheques, receipts, promissory notes and other documents of securities issued by the petitioner, on behalf of the company, m/s.allied motors limited and to replace these by executing fresh documents. learned counsel argued that award has already been published and accepted; gurcharan singh instead of fulfillinghis obligation, filed objections under section 34 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 before this court, challenging the said award (omp.no.256/2002) and obtained stay on 19.4.03. learned counsel referring to the award argued that the amount being claimed by the complainant formed part of the total investment of rs.3.25 crores made by her husband, gurcharan singh and that in a dispute of civil case, fir is mala fide and the petitioner is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 3. learned app for the state argued to the contrary, submitting that on 30.1.2003 smt. charan jeet kaur lodged a report alleging that the petitioner and his family members are the owners of m/s.allied motors limited; they induced her to invest money in his company for purchase of cars, which could be sold on profits, representing that it was hundred per cent safe investment and return of profit was instantaneous; on her reluctance, the petitioner and his associates represented that they would initially take the amount as loan, would give interest thereon and would subsequently book cars for her; on his inducement, the complainant invested a sum of rs.1,09,45,000/- in the company and booked 17 cars through petitioner. the payment was made through cheques, from the personal account of the complainant, the details of which are given in the fir. learned counsel argued that the cars were neither delivered nor the amount was refunded, despite repeated requests. learned app further argued that during investigations, it was revealed that the transaction between the petitioner and smt.charan jeet kaur is separate; she was not the.....

Full Judgment

S.K. Agarwal, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.57/2003, u/Ss. 406/420/468/471/34 IPC, P.S. Civil Line, Delhi.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s.Allied Motors Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act; 97% of the shares of this company are held by the petitioner and his family members. This company was a licensed dealer of Maruti Udyog Limited, for the last several years; one Gurcharan Singh, husband of the complainant, advanced loans to the company from time to time, for which he used to take cheques as security for repayment of the loan; cheques used to be taken in his own name or in the name of his son's firm. He had invested amount of Rs.3.25 crores, with the intention to convert it into equity, enabling him to come on the Board of Directors of the company, and to participate in the management; he wanted to buy the entire shareholding of the company, but the price of the shares could not be settled, and certain disputes arose between them; parties decided to get their dispute settled through arbitration through Sh.Arun Khosla, advocate, who was known to both of them. Accordingly on 13.4.2002, Arbitration Agreement was executed between the petitioner and Gurcharan Singh (Annexure P-1). After hearing the parties, the arbitrator, made and published the award on 19.4.2002 (AnnexureP-2). Gurcharan Singh received and accepted the award; under the award, he was to make payment of Rs.11.0 crores to the company, and in lieu thereof the entire equity held by petitioner and his family members was to be transferred in his name; Rs.3.25 crores already invested by Gurcharan Singh was to be adjusted, and personal guarantees given by petitioner to the banks and non banking finance companies etc. was to be replaced. He was also required to simultaneously ensure return of all post dated cheques, receipts, promissory notes and other documents of securities issued by the petitioner, on behalf of the company, M/s.Allied Motors Limited and to replace these by executing fresh documents. Learned counsel argued that award has already been published and accepted; Gurcharan Singh instead of fulfillinghis obligation, filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before this Court, challenging the said award (OMP.No.256/2002) and obtained stay on 19.4.03. Learned counsel referring to the award argued that the amount being claimed by the complainant formed part of the total investment of Rs.3.25 crores made by her husband, Gurcharan Singh and that in a dispute of civil case, FIR is mala fide and the petitioner is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

3. Learned APP for the State argued to the contrary, submitting that on 30.1.2003 Smt. Charan jeet Kaur lodged a report alleging that the petitioner and his family members are the owners of M/s.Allied Motors Limited; they induced her to invest money in his company for purchase of cars, which could be sold on profits, representing that it was hundred per cent safe investment and return of profit was instantaneous; on her reluctance, the petitioner and his associates represented that they would initially take the amount as loan, would give interest thereon and would subsequently book cars for her; on his inducement, the complainant invested a sum of Rs.1,09,45,000/- in the company and booked 17 cars through petitioner. The payment was made through cheques, from the personal account of the complainant, the details of which are given in the FIR. Learned counsel argued that the cars were neither delivered nor the amount was refunded, despite repeated requests.

Learned APP further argued that during investigations, it was revealed that the transaction between the petitioner and Smt.Charan jeet Kaur is separate; she was not the party to the said Arbitration Agreement dated 13.4.2003; she had invested the amount of Rs.1,09,45,000/- from her personal account and from the partnership concern, after taking out her capital; that investigations revealed that these transactions are not even reflected in the computer, showing booking of the cars and that the petitioner is also involved in similar other cases i.e. : (i) FIR No.244/2002 u/Ss. 420/468/471/406/34 IPC, P.S. Roop Nagar; (ii) FIR No.585/2002 u/Ss. 406/420 IPC, P.S.Connaught Place, New Delhi; (iii) FIR No.586/2002 u/Ss. 406/420 IPC, P.S. Connaught Place; (iv) FIR No.57/2003 u/Ss. 420/468/471/406/34 IPC P.S. Civil Lines Delhi and (v) FIR No.529 u/Ss. 420/468/471/406/34 IPC, P.S.Kashmere Gate, Delhi. It is thus argued that interrogation of the petitioner is required to reach the truth and to find out where the petitioner has siphoned off the money, and material documents/evidence are still to be collected.

4.In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner does not contest that petitioner is involved in the above noted five cases. He however, submits that two cases mentioned at Seriall Nos.(ii) and (iii) have already been compromised and cases mentioned at Seriall Nos.(i) and (v), compromise talks are in progress. Learned counsel argued that these cases were registered because of financial difficulties through which petitioner is passing.

5.Admittedly, complainant was not the party to the said Arbitration Agreement dated 13.4.2003; that agreement was between the petitioner and Gurcharan Singh, here the amount deposited by the complainant was from her personal account and from the firm in which she is a partner, on false representation of the petitioner and others. Neither the amount has been returned nor the cars have been delivered to her. As per the allegations, petitioner has even manipulated accounts and booking of the cars is not even reflected in the computer. In the backdrop of these facts, it is not possible to say that it is merely a civil dispute and no case of custodial interrogation is made out.

6.Looking into the nature of allegation and gravity of offence and previous involvement of the petitioner, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial