Delhi High Court
M/S Uppal Chadha Hi Tech Developers Pvt. … vs State Of N.C.T Of Delhi & Anr. on 9 December, 2024
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 19th November, 2024
Pronounced on: 9th December, 2024
+ W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 & CRL.M.A. 32423/2024
M/S UPPAL CHADHA HI TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior
Advocate, Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog,
Senior Advocate, Mr. Sumeer
Sodhi & Mr. Gaurav Arora,
Advocates.
versus
STATE OF N.C.T OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC with Mr.
Kshitiz Garg and Mr. Ashvini
Kumar, Advocates.
Mr. Zoheb Hossain Spl. Counsel
for ED, Mr Manish Jain, SPP for
ED Mr Vivek Gurnani, panel
counsel for ED Mr Kartik
Sabharwal, Mr Kanishk Maurya
Mr. Pranjal Tripathi and Mr Kunal
Kochar , Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
JUDGMENT
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”) and/or Section 482 of the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 1 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) seeking quashing
of FIR no. 13/2024, dated 6th March, 2024, registered at Police Station –
Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi (hereinafter “EOW”) for offences
punishable under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter “IPC”).
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. At the instance of one complainant namely Mr. K Ramesh and
Mrs. Kaveri Ramesh and other persons, FIR no. 16/2018 dated 24th
January, 2018 got registered at Police Station – EOW for offences
punishable under Sections 420/406/120B of the IPC against the petitioner
and several others.
3. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2/Directorate of Enforcement
(hereinafter “ED”) lodged the ECIR/099HIU/2019 dated 27th June, 2019
(hereinafter “ECIR”) under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act 2002 (hereinafter “PMLA”) against M/s Uppal Chadha
Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Harmandeep Singh, Mr. Gurjit Singh
Kochar, Mr. Kritika Gupta, Mr. Rajinder Singh Chadha and other
unknown persons while considering FIR no. 16/2018 as the predicate
offence.
4. The accused persons in FIR no. 16/2018 arrived at a settlement
with the complainants in the said FIR. Consequently, an application for
compounding under Section 320 of the CrPC was preferred before the
Court concerned, which was allowed vide order dated 19th November,
2019 and the accused persons were accordingly acquitted for offences
under Sections 406/420/120B of the IPC.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 2 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
5. Subsequently, at the instance of the one complainant namely Mrs.
Shalini Gupta, another FIR no. 49/2021, dated 12th March, 2021 was
registered under Sections 420/406/120B of the IPC at Police Station –
EOW against four accused persons including the petitioner herein. The
said FIR was quashed on the grounds of settlement by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 22nd December, 2022 passed in
CRL. MC. 7083/2022.
6. In the meanwhile, a writ petition bearing no. W.P (Crl) 526/2023
titled ‗Rajinder Singh Chadha v. Union of India, Ministry of Home
Affairs & Anr.’ was filed before this Court, thereby, seeking quashing of
the said ECIR since the predicate offences viz. FIR nos. 16/2018 and
49/2021 stood compounded and quashed respectively.
7. During the pendency of the above said quashing petition, a new
FIR no. 55/2023 dated 10th July, 2023 was registered against the
petitioner at Police Station – EOW for offences punishable under
Sections 420/409/120B of the IPC on the complaint made by one Mrs.
Shobhna Gupta.
8. Thereafter, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 24th
November, 2023, partly allowed W.P (Crl) 526/2023 with the
observations that since the schedule offences in FIR nos. 16/2018 and
49/20241 have been compounded and quashed, respectively, the ED
cannot initiate or continue any proceeding including investigation in
connection with the said two FIRs. However, the Coordinate Bench
declined to quash the said ECIR in view of registration of FIR no.
55/2023 as the same would constitute „scheduled offences legitimizing
the existence of the said ECIR‟.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 3 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
9. In the meanwhile, the ED issued a letter dated 27th May, 2023 to
the EOW under Section 66 (2) of the PMLA, thereby, sharing
information about an alleged offence uncovered during the ED‟s search
and seizure operations conducted from 18th November, 2022 to 22nd
November, 2022.
10. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition bearing CRL. MC.
420/2024 titled ‗Uppal Chadha Hi-tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v.
State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.’ seeking quashing of FIR no. 55/2023 on
the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement.
11. Pursuant to the above, the EOW registered a new FIR no. 13/2024,
dated 6th March, 2024, for offences punishable under Sections
406/420/120B of the IPC citing ED‟s letter dated 27th May, 2023.
Following the said development, on 7th April, 2024, the ED executed an
addendum to the aforementioned ECIR, effectively incorporating FIR no.
13/2024 as part of the ongoing ECIR investigation.
12. On 28th May, 2024, the ED filed a prosecution complaint after
investigation of ECIR before the Court concerned where the present
petitioner was arraigned as accused no. 2. The learned Court below took
cognizance of the matter vide order dated 28 th May, 2024 and the
complaint was registered as Ct. Cases no. 1799/2024.
13. Thereafter, vide order dated 14th October, 2024, CRL. MC.
420/2024 was allowed by this Court resulting in quashing of the FIR no.
55/2023.
14. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking
quashing of the FIR no. 13/2024.
PLEADINGS BEFORE THIS COURT
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 4 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
15. The instant petition has been filed on the following grounds:
―A. BECAUSE the registration of FIR No. 0013/2024 is the
result of a letter dated 27.05.023, purportedly under Section
66 (2) of the PMLA issued by ED sharing information about
an alleged offense supposedly uncovered during their search
and seizure operations conducted from 18.11.2022 to
22.11.2022 under Section 17 of the PMLA. As a direct result,
the EOW registered the FIR bearing No. 0013/2024, citing
the ED’s letter as the basis. This FIR was only an
“insurance FIR” which ED got registered to maintain
investigative jurisdiction under the PMLA, anticipating the
likely quashing of FIR No. 55/2023 (FIR No. 55/2023 has
been quashed by this Hon ‘ble Court vide order dated
14.10.2024).
B. BECAUSE a bare perusal of Section 66(2) of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 would reveal
that the ED shall share information gathered with the
concerned agency if it is of the opinion that the provisions of
any other law have been violated. However, the information
gathered by the ED and disclosed to EOW vide its letter
dated 27.05.2023 is not new information and does not
disclose violation of any law for which a fresh cause of
action or fresh FIR is required. ED has alleged pendency of
cases before RERA against the Petitioner Company, which is
information available in the public domain, and certain
alleged violations of Hi-Tech Policy which ED has come to
know after gathering information from Housing
Commissioner, UP Housing and Development Board,
Lucknow. This information cannot be termed as violation of
any other law as prescribed by the PMLA.
C. BECAUSE the ED’s actions, or rather inactions, strike at
the very heart of due process and legal propriety mandated
by the PMLA. Section 66(2) of the PMLA is not a mere
procedural formality; it is a substantive safeguard that
demands the ED to form a concrete opinion regarding the
violation of any law before sharing information with other
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 5 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
agencies. In this case, the ED’s letter dated 27.05.2023 to
the EOW is nothing short of a dereliction of this statutory
duty. The ED’s perfunctory request that “action taken, if any,
on the basis of information shared may kindly be informed”
is a glaring admission of its failure to form the requisite
opinion. This is not a minor oversight; it is a fundamental
breach of the statutory mandate. The ED has essentially
abdicated its responsibility, passing the buck to the EOW
without fulfilling its own legal obligations. This cavalier
approach not only undermines the integrity of the
investigative process but also renders the entire basis of the
FIR legally untenable. The ED’s failure to form an opinion is
not just a procedural lapse; it vitiates the very foundation of
the subsequent actions taken by the EOW. In essence, the ED
has initiated a chain of investigative actions without meeting
the basic threshold required by law. This blatant disregard
for statutory requirements cannot be condoned and renders
the entire process, including the registration of the FIR, void
ab initio.
D. BECAUSE the mere act of information sharing by the
ED under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act (PMLA) does not absolve the recipient
agency, in this case the EOW, of its fundamental duty to
conduct an independent and thorough investigation. The
EOW’s failure to do so strikes at the core of procedural
justice and investigative integrity. It is a cardinal principle
of law that the recipient agency must apply its own mind,
scrutinize the information received in light of other pertinent
records, and arrive at an independent decision regarding the
registration of a scheduled offence. The ED’s presumption of
a scheduled offence cannot and must not be blindly accepted
as an irrefutable conclusion. The necessity for the EOW to
apply its own mind is an inherent and inviolable requirement
that flows from the bedrock principles governing procedural
laws. By failing to conduct its own investigation and merely
reproducing the ED’s findings, the EOW has abdicated itsSignature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 6 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
statutory responsibility, compromised the integrity of the
investigative process.
E. BECAUSE the legislature, in its wisdom, did not
authorize the ED to communicate its ‘opinion’ for direct
action, nor did it mandate the recipient agency to act based
on such an opinion. Had this been the legislative intent,
Section 66(2) would have explicitly stated that the ED could
communicate its opinion and that the recipient agency
should take action based on that opinion. The conspicuous
absence of such phraseology is a deliberate limitation
imposed by the Legislature on the scope and effect of the
ED’s communication.
F. BECAUSE the disclosed information, including pending
RERA cases and alleged violations of Hi-Tech Policy, is
either already publicly available or relates to regulatory and
administrative matters rather than criminal offenses under
the Indian Penal Code. As such, these allegations do not
provide sufficient grounds for initiating new criminal
proceedings against the Petitioner Company and infact
shows the malafide on the part of the Informant (ED) as
abuse of its powers under the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act.
G. BECAUSE it is crucial to note that the pendency of cases
before RERA or violation of Hi-tech policy is not an offense
under the provisions of the C Indian Penal Code (IPC).
These matters are primarily regulatory or administrative in
nature and do not constitute criminal offenses that would
warrant the filing of an FIR.
H. BECAUSE the information provided by the ED does not
reveal any new criminal activity or previously unknown
offenses that would justify the initiation of fresh criminal
proceedings. The pendency of RERA cases is already a
matter of public record, and alleged violations of the Hi-tech
policy, even if substantiated, do not inherently amount toSignature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 7 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
criminal conduct under the IPC or other criminal statutes.
The intent of the legislature is to enable the ED to share
information regarding a crime committed under some other
legislation. For instance while investigating money
laundering in a predicate scheduled offence lets say under
Sec. 420 IPC if the ED comes across violations of FEMA or
NDPS Act, the relevant authorities must be informed so that
the criminal law machinery under the said law can be set in
motion. The purport of Section 66(2) PMLA cannot by any
stretch of imagination allow ED to continue lodging FIRs so
as to ensure that ED investigation continues indefinitely.
I. BECAUSE the purpose of an FIR is to set the criminal
law in motion when a cognizable offense is reported. In this
case, the information shared by the ED does not meet this
threshold. It merely reiterates existing regulatory issues or
potential civil disputes, which should be addressed through
appropriate channels such as regulatory authorities or civil
courts, rather than the criminal justice system.
J. BECAUSE timing of the ED’s information sharing with
the EOW under Section 66 of the PMLA raises significant
concerns about the impartiality and integrity of the ED’s
investigative process. The ED conducted its search and
seizure operations under Section 17 of the PMLA from
18.11.2022 to 22.11.2022. However, the information gleaned
from these operations was not immediately shared with the
EOW. Instead, the ED waited until 27.05.2023 to convey this
information – a delay of over six months.
K. BECAUSE the timing strongly suggests that the ED’s
action was not driven by the regular course of investigation,
but rather by a strategic attempt to maintain its jurisdiction
even if the FIR No. 0055/2023 does not survive the test of
time. Such conduct on the part of a premiere federal
investigation agency needs to be declared as illegal being
tainted with malafide intentions.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 8 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
L. BECAUSE sharing of information while exercising
powers under Section 66 (2) of the PMLA, the subsequent
registration of FIR No. 0013/2024, is nothing but an
insurance act of the ED to ensure that it is left with a
predicate offense even if the FIR No. 0055/2023 is quashed.
M. BECAUSE disclosure made by the Directorate of
Enforcement is entirely arbitrary, capricious, with a
malafide intent and part of a larger scheme of continuous
harassment of a business group. The impugned FIR, bearing
No. 0013 dated 06.03.2024, should be quashed on the
ground that the Directorate of Enforcement is exploiting,
abusing and misusing legal provisions to ensure the survival
of its lodged ECIR. This ingenious manoeuvre at the behest
of ED enables the continuation of unwarranted harassment
towards the Petitioner under the pretext of investigating an
alleged money laundering offense.
N. BECAUSE jurisdiction and authority of the Directorate
of Enforcement stands confined to considering whether an
offense of money laundering stands committed. Directorate
of Enforcement is not empowered to either try or examine
whether an offense under any other statue stands committed.
O. BECAUSE provisions of Section 66 (2) PMLA is being
utilized by ED to give teeth to an otherwise unsustainable
ECIR which is impermissible in law.
P. BECAUSE the contents of the impugned FIR are merely
a reproduction of the ED’s letter dated 27.05.2023. EOW
has solely relied on the ED’s letter without conducting its
own inquiry. This approach potentially circumvents due
process and raises concerns about the proper distinction
between regulatory matters and criminal investigations.
Moreover, if the matters in the ED’s letter are already being
addressed through other legal or regulatory mechanisms,
initiating a parallel criminal case based on the same facts
raise issues of double jeopardy or abuse of process.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 9 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
Q. BECAUSE the impugned FIR registered by the EOW is
legally untenable due to the absence of an independent
investigation based on the information disclosed by the ED.
The EOW’s action of merely reproducing the contents of the
ED’s letter dated 27.05.2023 without conducting its own
inquiry contravenes the principles of law. While Section
66(2) of the PMLA permits the sharing of information
between authorities “for necessary action,” it does not
automatically crystallize a scheduled offence. The
registration of the Impugned FIR without proper
investigation is abuse of the process of law. By failing to
conduct an independent inquiry to verify the allegations or
gather additional evidence, the EOW has potentially
circumvented due process, raising concerns about the
proper distinction between regulatory matters and criminal
investigations. This approach not only fails to meet the
standard of due diligence expected in criminal investigations
but also undermines the principles of fair investigation and
natural justice. Consequently, the non-investigation by the
EOW of the information disclosed by the ED renders the FIR
bad in law and liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on
the judgement passed by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble
Court in Harish Fabiani v. Enforcement Directorate & Ors.’
reported as 2022 SCC Online Del 3121.
R. BECAUSE there is a clear conflict in the twin roles of
ED. On one hand, it is no more res integra to be argued
against the settled principle of law that ED’s ECIR can only
survive if there is a predicate offence, on the other hand, if
ED is allowed to perpetually continue its ECIR on the basis
of an FIR which it can itself lodge on the basis of exactly
same allegations, the proceedings under the PMLA would
continue to exist even in the absence of a real predicate
offence. Hence it is most significant to interpret and define
the countours of following words of Section 66(2) – “the
provisions of any other law for the time being in force are
contravened.‖Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 10 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
S. BECAUSE without prejudice to the above and arguendo,
it is submitted that the ED can investigate only laundering of
proceeds of crime. The ED cannot be allowed to investigate
both the predicate offence as well as the laundering of
proceeds of crime and hence such actions on the part of ED
must be quashed.‖
16. In response to the instant petition, the respondent no. 1/EOW has
filed the status report, relevant paragraphs of which are as under:
―1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner
before this Hon’ble Court seeking quashing of FIR no.
13/2024 dated 06.03.2024 registered at PS- EOW, New
Delhi.
REGISTRATION OF PRESENT FIR (13/2024 PS EOW)
2. The above said case has been registered on the basis of a
written information dated 27.05.2023 shared by Directorate
of Enforcement (ED) u/s 66(2) of PMLA, 2002 for taking
action against M/s Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt.
Ltd. (UCHDPL) and others.
3. It was informed by ED that it has recorded an
Enforcement Case Information Repo1i (ECIR) bearing no.
ECIR/09/HIU/2019 for further investigation of offence u/s 3
& 4 PMLA, 2002 on the basis of FIR No. 16/2028 u/s
420/406/120B JP which was registered at EOW on
21.01.2018 against M/s UCHDPL and its directors. During
18.11.22 to 22.11.22, ED carried out search and seizure u/s
17 PMLA 2002 at various places related to M/s UCHDPL
and seized various records/documents including digital
devices viz. mobile phones and Laptops.
4. It is further informed by ED that analysis of seized
documents revealed diversion of funds by M/s UCHDPL to
its following group entities to the tune of Rs. 474 Crores
approximately.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 11 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
a. M/s Chadha Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd.,
b. M/s Suncity Hi Tech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,
c. M/s Wave Infratech Pvt. Ltd.,
d. M/s Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd.,
5. It is also informed by ED that the booking amount
collected by M/s UCHDPL from investors/home buyers of
the projects namely Wave City at NH-24 Ghaziabad has
been diverted for the purposes other than development of the
said projects which resulted in non-completion of project in
time for which the home buyers had given their money.
6. It is also informed by ED that total 966 complaints were
received at RERA, UP against M/s UCHDPL, out of which
887 have been disposed off with the directions of refund,
settlement default possession etc. and 79 out of 966
complaints are also pending with RERA, UP. Status of
compliance of directions of RERA is yet to be ascertained.
7. It is further informed by ED that M/s UCHDPL has got
the approval from UP Govt. to purchase the land for Hi-
Tech City in excess of 12.5 Acres u/s 154 of Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and got
the permission to develop the Hi-Tech City as single
company rather than a consortium.
8. It is informed by ED that the land was first acquired by 40
companies and then these companies were merged with
UCHDPL by an order dated 05.05.2014 of Hon’ble Delhi
High Court. It appears that real intention of incorporating
40 companies, acquisition of land through them and then
their merger with UCHDPL was to aggregate land in
UCHDPL by circumventing the Land Ceiling Laws.
9. The above information of ED, prima-facie disclosed
commission of cognizable offence and hence the present FIR
bearing no. 13/2024 was registered at EOW and taken up for
investigation.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 12 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
STATUS OF OTHER CASES/FIR
10. First case against the petitioner UCHDPL was
registered at EOW bearing FIR No. 16/2018 on 21.01.2018
wherein it was alleged that UCHDPL and its directors and
other employees of the company entered into a criminal
conspiracy to cheat the innocent investors/public at large in
guise of allotting them plots on the discounted rates in the
prime location of Ghaziabad UP with false claim of world
class facilities and amenities.
11. There were total 73 victims in the above said FIR and
chargesheet was filed before the Ld. CMM/South on
14.11.2019. However, the case was compounded based on
the settlement with victims.
12. Another case against the petitioner UCHDPL was
registered at EOW bearing FIR No. 49/2021 on 12.03.2021
on the similar allegations in which there were total 73
victims. The said FIR has been quashed by the Hon ‘ble
Delhi High Court vide order dated 22.12.2022 on the ground
of settlement with the victims.
13. Thereafter, another case against the petitioner UCHDPL
was registered at EOW bearing FIR No. 55/2023 on
10.07.2023 on the complaint of one Shobhna Gupta having
similar allegations. The said case has also been quashed by
the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 14. 10.2024
on the ground of settlement with the complainant.
14. All the previous FIRs i.e., 16/2018, 49/2021 and 55/2023
against the petitioner UCHDPL has been either compounded
or quashed on the ground of settlement with the
complainants/victims. However, the present FIR i.e. 13/2024
is registered at EOW on 06.03.2023 on the basis of written
information dated 27.05.2023 received from ED which was
much prior to the quashing of FIR no. 55/2023 of PSEOW.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 13 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
15. That the allegations in the present FIR i.e., 13/2024 are
different from the previous FIRs registered against the
petitioner wherein there is specific allegation of land
acquisition by 40 companies by circumventing land ceiling
laws and their subsequent merger with the petitioner
UCHDPL apart from the other allegations of diversion of
investor’s money by the petitioner UCHDPL in conspiracy
with its other group entities.
16. The allegations pertain to the cheating with the
concerned government authorities as well with the
investors/home buyers whose money have been
misappropriated by the accused company i.e. UCHDPL by
way of diversion of funds to its group entities.
17. As per the information of ED, there are 79 complaints
still pending with UP RERA. The exact number of
investors/victims is not known yet which is to be ascertained
during investigation.
18. That the investigation of the present FIR i.e., 13/2024
registered at EOW is at initial stage.‖
17. The respondent no. 2/ED has also filed its reply and the relevant
portion of the same is as under:
―..4. It is submitted that the petition deserves to be rejected
for concealment of material facts. It is submitted that the in
several paragraphs the petitioner has stated the contents of
the letter under Section 66(2) PMLA and impugned FIR
pertain to pending cases registered under RERA and
allegations of policy violation. However, the petitioner has
deliberately and conspicuously omitted to refer to the
allegations regarding the diversion of investor funds which
is a material fact and is at the centre of the entire factual
matrix. There is not even a whisper in the petition with
regard to the allegations in the FIR against the petitioner
regarding diversions of funds and utilization of those fundsSignature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 14 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
other than the purpose of development of Hi Tech city at
Ghaziabad which was the essential element of Hi Tech
Policy 2003 under which the petitioner was shortlisted for
such development. Further even today after the lapse of 20
years the petitioner has neither acquired the complete land
nor it has completely developed the acquired land.
***
6. In this regard it is submitted that power/duty to send
information under section 66(2) while inquiring into the
offence of money laundering has been very well recognized
and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India; SCC
OnLine SC 929, wherein the 3 Judge of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court was pleased to hold the following. ……….
***
***
14. Further it is submitted that it may be seen that the
entire petition is silent as to how and why the Petitioner is
aggrieved by the mere registration of an FIR where the
investigation has not yet been concluded. The present
petition is nothing but a frail attempt on behalf of the
Petitioner to shy away from his responsibility of assisting in
the ongoing investigation. In, Kurukshetra University v.
State of Haryana (AIR 1977 SC 2229) the very same
question came up for consideration before the Supreme
Court and it was held that:…………
15. It is submitted that the very premise of the present
petition is against the well settled law as laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. Reliance in
this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Govt, of U.P. (2014)
2 SCC I, wherein it has been categorically held by a bench
of 5 Judges that, “The registration of FIR is mandatory
under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses
commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a situation.”
***
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 15 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
17.That it is submitted that from a perusal of the facts of the
case and gist of investigation conducted by the ED, as
enumerated hereinabove, it is beyond any pale of doubt that
the same discloses information regarding commission of a
cognizable offence and hence, the present petition is liable to
be dismissed.
***
***
20.Further, FIR/Complaint may be quashed if the
allegations made therein are so absurd and inherently
improbable that no prudent man can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the petitioner-accused- A.V. Murthy v. B.S.
Nagabasavanna (2002)2 SCC 642.
21. That after referring to State v Bhajan Lai 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335 and Rajesh Bajaj v State (1999)3 SCC 259 the
Supreme Court in Trisuns Chemical Industry v Rajesh
(1999)8 SCC 686 held that quashing of FIR or a complaint
in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court should
be limited to very extreme exceptions.
22. It is submitted that the very premise of the present
petition is against the well settled law as laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. Reliance in
this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Govt, of U.P. (2014)
2 SCC 1, wherein it has been categorically held by a bench
of 5 Judges that, ―The registration of FIR is mandatory
under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses
commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a situation.‖
23. Further it is submitted that that the Prosecution
Complaint dated 07.05.2024 has been filed and cognizance
stands taken by the Ld. Special Court vide order dated
28.05.2024 and the petitioner accused has been summoned,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 16 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
the same established that a prima facie case has been made
out against the petitioner and that the petitioner is guilty of
the offence of money laundering under the PML Act. The
same has been accepted and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia & Anr Vs.
Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patal & Ors; (2012)10 SCC 517
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to
hold as follows……….
***
***
30. The modus operandi devised by M/s UCHDPL for
diversion of funds is carried out in following manner:
a. Incorporation of companies in India by the promoters/
directors of M/s UCHDPL which were subsequently used to
divert funds from M/s. UCHDPL.
b. Infusion of fund/investment in UCHDPL from various
companies which were not part of Wave group belonging to
relatives of promoters/ directors of M/s. UCHDPL.
c. Diversion/transfer of funds collected from various
homebuyers to M/s Chadha Infrastructure Developers
Private Limited, M/s Wave Infratech Private Limited, M/s
Wave Megacity Centre Private Limited, M/s Suncity Hi Tech
Infrastructures Private Limited and M/s Country Colonisers
Private Limited, which is not involved in the construction
and development of Hi-Tech City at Ghaziabad. All the
above 5 companies are part of Wave group promoted by
Late Gurdeep Singh Chaddha.
d. The diversion of funds of innocent homebuyers/ customers
was a criminal conspiracy hatched by M/s. UCHDPL in
collusion with its group companies under which funds
collected at if development of Hi-Tech City were utilized for
activities other than the intended purpose in order to give
undue benefit to such group companies.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 17 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
31. From the investigation conducted under the provisions of
PMLA, 2002 it is established that part of booking amounts
collected by M/s. UCHDPL from investors/homebuyers of
the project namely Wave City at NH-24, Ghaziabad has been
diverted to its other group companies for the purposes other
than development of the said project which resulted in non-
completion of the project in time for which the
investors/homebuyers had given their hardearned money.
The same is evident from the multiple FIRs registered by
several customers against M/s. UCHDPL its directors,
promoters and other persons. Late Sh. Gurdeep Singh
Chadha was the promoter, director and a key decision
maker in M/s. UCHDPL and its group companies, however
he has expired on 17.11.2012.
32. Further, during investigation it was found that there
were multiple complaints lodged against M/s. UCHDPL with
Real Estate Regulatory Authority. Real Estate Regulatory
Authority came into existence after Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016 which aims to protect the
interests of buyers/investors and promote transparency and
accountability in the real estate industry.
33. Therefore, enquiries were made with RERA, UP vide
letter dated 16.03.2023 RERA, UP has informed vide letter
dated 16.03.2023 that total 966 complaints were received
against M/s UCHDPL, out of which 887 have been disposed
of with directions of refund, mutual settlement, default,
possession etc. More over 79 complaints are still pending as
per RERA.
34. This fact also establishes that despite collecting funds
from the investors/buyers/ general public for development of
Hi -Tech City at Ghaziabad, M/s. UCHDPL in collusion with
its group companies cheated such investors/buyers/general
public and dishonestly utilized those funds for procurement
of Land for its Group companies at Hyderabad, Mohali,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 18 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
Noida etc, for payment of statutory dues, for payment of
administrative expenses in these companies, for expansion of
their other businesses, repayment of Loans etc.
35.Investigation conducted so far revealed that funds
totaling to Rs. 845 crores approximately have been diverted
by M /s. UCHDPL in collusion with its group companies in
the manner as explained above which is nothing but
proceeds of crime generated by cheating the innocent
homebuyers.
***
***
39. That the averments made in Ground B are factually
incorrect, concealing material facts and misleading, hence
the ground and the writ petition deserve to the rejected on
this ground alone. The allegations contained in the FIR No.
0013/2024 are new and not made in the previous FIRs and
the same has been expanded in detail in the instant reply. It
is submitted that the bare perusal letter dated 27.05.2023
and the subsequent impugned FIR would show that the
information shared by the ED did not only contain the
―cases before RERA‖ and ―violations of Hi-Tech Policy‖
but also contained a detailed account of investor funds to the
tune of 845 Crores which were diverted. It is submitted that
the petitioner has deliberately concealed the latter part
relating of diversion of investor funds and the dishonest
conduct of the petitioner and others. The information shared
is regarding diversion of funds by UCHDPL to its group
companies for the purposes other than the development of
HiTech city thereby generating proceeds of Crime. These
funds were received from retail investors/bulk investors and
general public for the allotment of land/plot/building in the
Hi Tech City. However, rather than allotment of land and
development of HiTech City, these funds were utilised for
purchase of land, repayment of loan, and other personal
gains not related to HiTech city. The intent of sharing of
information regarding RERA complaints was to show the
grievances of general public at large. It is further submitted
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 19 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
that at the stage to determine whether the FIR should be
quashed it has to be seen whether there is prima facie case
which warrants investigation and to test whether an FIR
discloses commission of a cognizable offence what is to be
looked at is not any omission in the accusations but the
gravamen of the accusations contained therein to find out
whether, prima facie, some cognizable offence has been
committed or not. In this regard the recent judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Somjeet Mallick Vs State Of
Jharkhand & Others (SLP (Cr) 6583 of 2024) are relevant,
wherein the Hon’ble Court was dealing with the quashing
petition for the offence registered under Section 406/420
IPC, and overturned the quashing order passed by the
Hon’ble High Court.
40. That the averments made in Ground C deserve to the
rejected as false, frivolous and self-contradictory. It is
submitted that it is only upon the formation of opinion on the
basis of information or material in possession, that the
provisions of any other law for the time being in force are
contravened, the information was shared under Section
66(2) PMLA. It is submitted ED has discharged it statutory
duty following the due process of law. Further, it is
submitted that the petitioner avers that the ED is to share
―abdicated its responsibility, passing the buck to the EOW
without fulfilling its own legal obligations‖ which is
incorrect as investigation into any offence other that offence
of money laundering does not fall within the domain to
ED/PMLA and it is only the concerned authority which can
investigate the same, which in the present case is EOW. It is
submitted that the in ground N and S the petition avers that
ED cannot investigate any other offence under any other
statute which appears to be contradictory to the averments
in present paragraphs. It is submitted that the ED is bound
to share information under Section 66(2) if while
investigating a case under PMLA it comes across
information or material which prima facie shows that the
provisions of any other law for the time being in force are
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 20 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
contravened. The Section 66(2) is obligatory in nature as it
directs if the ED is of the opinion on the basis of information
or material in possession, that the provisions of any other
law are contravened then ED shall share the information
with the concerned agency for necessary action…‖
SUBMISSIONS
(on behalf of the petitioner)
18. Mr. Sandeep Sethi and Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned
FIR no. 13/2024 is illegal, baseless and has been registered without
application of mind which makes it liable to be quashed.
19. It is submitted that the registration of the aforesaid FIR is the result
of a letter dated 27th May, 2023 purportedly under Section 66(2) of the
PMLA issued by the ED, thereby, sharing information about an alleged
offence supposedly uncovered during their search and seizure operations
conducted from 18th November, 2022 to 22nd November, 2022. It is also
submitted that as a direct result, the EOW registered the FIR no. 13/2024
citing the ED‟s letter as a basis.
20. It is further submitted that the said FIR was only an „insurance
FIR‟ which the ED got registered to maintain investigative jurisdiction
under the PMLA, anticipating the likely quashing of FIR no. 55/2023
which was subsequently quashed on 14th October, 2024
21. It is submitted that a bare perusal of Section 66(2) of the PMLA
would reveal that the ED shall share the information gathered with the
concerned agency if it is of the opinion that the provisions of any other
law have been violated, however, the information gathered by the ED and
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 21 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
disclosed to EOW vide its letter dated 27th May, 2023 is not new
information and does not disclose violation of any law for which a fresh
cause of action or fresh FIR is required.
22. It is submitted that timing of the ED‟s information sharing with the
EOW under Section 66 of the PMLA raises significant concerns about the
impartiality and integrity of the ED‟s investigative process. The ED
conducted its search and seizure operations under Section 17 of the
PMLA from 18th November, 2022 to 22nd November, 2022. However, the
information gleaned from these operations was not immediately shared
with the EOW. Instead, the ED waited until 27th May, 2023 to convey this
information, i.e., after a delay of over six months.
23. It is submitted that ED has alleged pendency of cases before RERA
against the petitioner, which is information available in public domain,
and certain alleged violations of Hi-Tech Policy which the ED has come
to know after gathering information from Housing Commissioner, UP
Housing and Development Board, Lucknow. This information cannot be
termed as violation of any other law as prescribed by the PMLA.
24. It is submitted that the ED‟s actions, or rather inactions, strike at
the very heart of the due process and legal propriety mandated by the
PMLA as Section 66(2) of the PMLA is not a mere procedural formality,
but a substantive safeguard that demands the ED to form a concrete
opinion regarding the violation of any law before sharing information
with other agencies.
25. It is submitted that in the instant case, the ED‟s letter dated 27 th
May, 2023 to the EOW is nothing short of a dereliction of the statutory
duty. The ED‟s perfunctory request that ‗action taken, if any, on the basis
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 22 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
of information shared may kindly be informed’ is a glaring admission of
its failure to form the requisite opinion and the same is not a minor
oversight; it is a fundamental breach of the statutory mandate.
26. It is submitted that the ED has essentially abdicated its
responsibility by mechanically forwarding the information to the EOW to
keep the investigation against the petitioner alive. This cavalier approach
not only undermines the integrity of the investigative process but also
renders the entire basis of the FIR legally untenable.
27. It is submitted that the mere act of information sharing under
Section 66(2) of the PMLA does not absolve the recipient agency, EOW
herein, of its fundamental duty to conduct an independent and thorough
investigation.
28. It is also submitted that the ED‟s presumption of a scheduled
offence cannot and must not be blindly accepted as an irrefutable
conclusion. Moreover, by failing to conduct its own investigation and
merely reproducing the ED‟s findings, the EOW has abdicated its
statutory responsibility.
29. It is submitted that the legislature, in its wisdom, neither did
authorize the ED to communicate its „opinion‟ for direct action, nor did it
mandate the recipient agency to act based on such an opinion. Further,
had this been the legislative intent, Section 66(2) of the PMLA would
have explicitly stated that the ED could communicate its opinion and that
the recipient agency should take action based on that opinion. The
conspicuous absence of such phraseology is a deliberate limitation
imposed by the legislature on the scope and effect of the ED‟s
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 23 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
communication. Therefore, the act of ED forwarding the information and
EOW registering the FIR thereupon is erroneous.
30. It is submitted that the disclosed information, including pending
RERA cases and alleged violations of Hi-Tech Policy, is either already
publicly available or relates to regulatory and administrative matters
rather than criminal offences under the IPC. As such, these allegations do
not provide sufficient grounds for initiating new criminal proceedings
against the petitioner company and in fact shows the mala fide on the part
of the informant, i.e., ED, as abuse of its powers, under the PMLA. It is
further submitted that the information provided by the ED does not reveal
any new criminal activity or previously unknown offences that would
justify the initiation of fresh criminal proceedings.
31. It is submitted that the contents of the impugned FIR are merely a
reproduction of the ED‟s letter dated 27th May, 2023 and the EOW solely
relied on the ED‟s letter without conducting its own inquiry. The learned
senior counsel further submitted that the said approach potentially
circumvents due process and raises concerns about the proper distinction
between regulatory matters and criminal investigations. Moreover, if the
matters in the ED‟s letter are already being addressed through other legal
or regulatory mechanisms, initiating a parallel criminal case based on the
same facts raise issues of double jeopardy or abuse of process.
32. It is submitted that the impugned FIR registered by the EOW is
legally untenable due to the absence of an independent investigation
based on the information disclosed by the ED. The EOW’s action of
merely reproducing the contents of the ED’s letter dated 27 th May, 2023
without conducting its own inquiry contravenes the principles of law.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 24 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
33. It is submitted that while Section 66(2) of the PMLA permits the
sharing of information between authorities „for necessary action,‟ it does
not automatically crystallize a scheduled offence. Thus, the registration of
the impugned FIR without proper investigation is an abuse of the process
of law. By failing to conduct an independent inquiry to verify the
allegations or gather additional evidence, the EOW has potentially
circumvented due process, raising concerns about the proper distinction
between regulatory matters and criminal investigations.
34. It is submitted that this approach not only fails to meet the standard
of due diligence expected in criminal investigations but also undermines
the principles of fair investigation and natural justice. Consequently, the
non-investigation by the EOW of the information disclosed by the ED
renders the FIR bad in law and liable to be quashed
35. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that
the instant petition may be allowed and the reliefs be granted as prayed
for.
(on behalf of the respondent no.1/EOW)
36. Per Contra, Mr. Amol Sinha, learned ASC, appearing on behalf of
the respondent no. 1 EOW vehemently opposed the instant petition
submitting to the effect that the same is liable to be dismissed being
devoid of any merit.
37. It is submitted that the impugned FIR was registered on the basis of
written information dated 27th May, 2023, shared by the ED under
Section 66(2) of the PMLA for taking action against M/s Uppal Chadha
Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. and others. It is submitted that it was
informed by the ED that it has recorded an ECIR for further investigation
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 25 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA on the basis
of FIR nos. 16/2018 which was registered at EOW on 21st January, 2018
against the present petitioner. It is submitted that during 18th November,
2022 to 22nd November, 2022, the ED carried out search and seizure
under Section 17 of the PMLA at various places related to the petitioner
and seized various records/documents including digital devices viz.
mobile phones and laptops.
38. It is submitted that it was further informed by the ED that analysis
of seized documents revealed diversion of funds to the tune of Rs. 474
Crores approximately by the petitioner to its group entities namely M/s
Chadha Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd., M/s Suncity Hi – Tech
Infrastructure Ltd., M/s Wave Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Wave Megacity
Centre Pvt. Ltd.
39. It is submitted that vide the letter dated 27 th May, 2023, it was also
informed by the ED that the booking amount collected by the petitioner
from investors/home buyers of the projects namely M/s Wave City at
NH-24, Ghaziabad has been diverted for the purposes other than
development of the said projects which resulted in non-completion of
project in time for which the home buyers had given their money.
40. It is submitted that the petitioner got the approval from the UP
Government to purchase the land for Hi – Tech City in excess of 12.5
Acres under Section 154 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms act, 1950 and got the permission to develop the Hi – tech
City as a single company rather than a consortium. It is further submitted
that the land was first acquired by forty companies and then these
companies were merged with the petitioner by an order dated 5th April,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 26 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
2014 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. It appears that real intention
of incorporating forty companies, acquisition of land through them and
their merger with the petitioner was to aggregate the land with the
petitioner company by circumventing the land ceiling laws.
41. It is submitted that the above information of ED, prima facie,
disclosed commission of cognizable offence and hence, the present FIR
was registered at EOW and taken up for investigation.
42. It is submitted that all the previous FIRs i.e., 16/2018, 49/2021 and
55/2023 against the petitioner has been either compounded or quashed on
the ground of settlement with the complainants/victims, however, the
present FIR i.e. 13/2024 was registered at EOW on 6th March, 2024 on
the basis of written information received from the ED which was much
prior to the quashing of FIR no. 55/2023.
43. It is submitted that the allegations in the present FIR i.e., 13/2024
are different from the previous FIRs registered against the petitioner
wherein there is specific allegation of land acquisition by forty companies
by circumventing land ceiling laws and their subsequent merger with the
petitioner apart from the other allegations of diversion of investor’s
money by the petitioner in conspiracy with its other group entities.
44. It is submitted that the allegations pertain to cheating with the
concerned government authorities as well with the investors/home buyers
whose money have been misappropriated by the petitioner by way of
diversion of funds to its group entities.
45. It is submitted that as per the information of the ED, there are
seventy nine complaints still pending with UP RERA. The exact number
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 27 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
of investors/victims is not known yet which is to be ascertained during
investigation which is at a nascent stage.
46. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that
the instant petition may be dismissed.
(on behalf of the respondent no.2/ED)
47. Thereafter, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned SPP also vehemently
opposed the instant petition submitting to the effect that the present
petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR no. 13/2024 on the
primary ground that the same has been registered by the police authorities
on the basis of information shared under Section 66(2) of the PMLA, and
that allegedly the police authorities have failed to conduct any enquiry or
apply its own mind before registration of such FIR. In this regard, it is
submitted that power/duty to send information under Section 66 (2) of the
PMLA, while inquiring into the offence of money laundering, has been
very well recognized and upheld by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the
case of Vijay Madanlal Choudahry vs. Union of India 1. It is further
submitted that the criminal law can be put into motion by any person as
held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak 2.
48. It is submitted that the instant petition deserves to be rejected for
concealment of material facts. In several paragraphs, the petitioner has
stated the contents of the letter under Section 66 (2) of the PMLA and
impugned FIR pertain to pending cases registered under RERA and
allegations of policy violation. However, the petitioner has deliberately
and conspicuously omitted to refer to the allegations regarding the
1
SCC OnLine SC 929
2
(1988) 2 SCC 602
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 28 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
diversion of investor funds which is a material fact and is at the centre of
the entire factual matrix.
49. It is submitted that there is not even a whisper in the petition with
regard to the allegations in the FIR against the petitioner regarding
diversions of funds and utilization of those funds for the purpose other
than development of the Hi-Tech city at Ghaziabad which was an
essential element of the Hi-Tech Policy, 2003 under which the petitioner
was shortlisted for such development. Further, even today after the lapse
of twenty years, the petitioner has neither acquired the complete land, nor
has it completely developed the acquired land.
50. It is submitted that the entire petition is silent as to how and why
the petitioner is aggrieved by the mere registration of an FIR where the
investigation has not yet been concluded. The present petition is nothing
but a frail attempt on behalf of the petitioner to shy away from his
responsibility of assisting in the ongoing investigation.
51. It is submitted that the very premise of the present petition is
against the well settled law as laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
in a catena of decisions. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision
of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt, of
U.P.3, wherein, it has been categorically held that the registration of an
FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC if the information
discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry
is permissible in such a situation.
52. It is submitted that from a perusal of the facts of the case and gist
of investigation conducted by the ED, as enumerated hereinabove, it is
3
(2014) 2 SCC 1
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 29 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
beyond any pale of doubt that the same discloses information regarding
commission of a cognizable offence and hence, the present petition is
liable to be dismissed.
53. It is submitted that a complaint under the provisions of the PMLA
has been filed and cognizance stands taken by the Court concerned vide
order dated 28th May, 2024 and the petitioner accused has been
summoned which establishes that a prima facie case has been made out
against the petitioner and that the petitioner is guilty of the offence of
money laundering under the PMLA.
54. It is submitted that the allegations made in the FIR establishes that
despite collecting funds from the investors/buyers/general public for
development of the Hi-Tech City at Ghaziabad, the petitioner, in
collusion with its group companies, cheated such investors/buyers/general
public and dishonestly utilized those funds for procurement of the land
for its group companies at Hyderabad, Mohali, Noida etc, for payment of
statutory dues, for payment of administrative expenses in these
companies, for expansion of their other businesses, repayment of loans
etc.
55. It is submitted that the present petition has been filed under Section
528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC) which provides
inherent powers to this Court, however, in terms of the settled position of
law, while adjudicating a petition for quashing of an FIR, the powers
under the aforesaid provision are to be exercised sparingly and
cautiously.
56. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that
the instant petition may be dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 30 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
57. This Court has heard the learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, learned ASC appearing on behalf of the
respondent no. 1/EOW and learned SPP appearing on behalf of the
respondent no. 2/ED at length, and perused the relevant material placed
on record including the status report.
58. Before delving into the merits of the case, this Court deems it
appropriate to state the settled position of law regarding quashing of an
FIR under Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC).
59. It is a settled law that the width of the powers of the High Court
under Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS) is vast
and the High Court has the power to make such orders as may be
necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice.
60. Furthermore, under Section 482 of the CrPC, the High Court has
the authority to take into consideration the material that may be produced
on behalf of the accused, to arrive at a decision. The aforesaid parameters
must be borne in mind while examining whether the High Court should
exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC in the
facts and circumstances of a case.
61. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd.
v. State of Maharashtra4, reiterated the principles to be followed while
quashing an FIR and held as under:
―10.3. Then comes the celebrated decision of this Court
in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp
4
(2021) 19 SCC 401Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 31 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
(1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] . In the said decision,
this Court considered in detail the scope of the High Court
powers under Section 482CrPC and/or Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to quash the FIR and referred to
several judicial precedents and held that the High Court
should not embark upon an inquiry into the merits and
demerits of the allegations and quash the proceedings
without allowing the investigating agency to complete its
task. At the same time, this Court identified the following
cases in which FIR/complaint can be quashed:
―102. (1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are taken
at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR
do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of
the same do not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to theSignature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 32 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act
concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance
of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him
due to private and personal grudge.‖
***
13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from
the decision of the Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir
Ahmad [King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944 SCC
OnLine PC 29 : (1943-44) 71 IA 203 : AIR 1945 PC 18] ,
the following principles of law emerge:
13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the
relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into
cognizable offences.
13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences.
13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence or
offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information
report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on.
13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection, in the ―rarest of rare
cases‖. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its
application for quashing under Section 482 CrPC is not
to be confused with the norm which has been formulated
in the context of the death penalty, as explained
previously by this Court.)
13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of
which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise
of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 33 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule.
13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State
operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent
power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the
ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by
Section 482 CrPC.
13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping.
13.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference
would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the
judicial process should not interfere at the stage of
investigation of offences.
13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do
not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act
according to its whims or caprice.
13.12. The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details
relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the
investigation by the police is in progress, the court should
not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police
must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would
be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy
facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law.
During or after investigation, if the investigating officer
finds that there is no substance in the application made by
the complainant, the investigating officer may file an
appropriate report/summary before the learned
Magistrate which may be considered by the learned
Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.
13.13. The power under Section 482CrPC is very wide,
but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be
cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on
the Court.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 34 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
13.14. However, at the same time, the Court, if it thinks
fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and
the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the
parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P.
Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR
1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992
SCC (Cri) 426] , has the jurisdiction to quash the
FIR/complaint.
13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the power
under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether or
not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of
a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on
merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable
offence or not and the court has to permit the
investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations
in the FIR.
14. Whether the High Court would be justified in granting
stay of further investigation pending the proceedings under
Section 482CrPC before it and in what circumstances the
High Court would be justified is a further core question to be
considered…”
62. Perusal of the aforesaid extracts shows that in terms of the settled
position of law, an FIR can be quashed by the High Court – where the
allegations made in the FIR do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused, where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR do not disclose the commission of any offence, where
the allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, where a
criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where
the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 35 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge etc.
63. Furthermore, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has time and again
reiterated that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, in the “rarest of rare cases”. Additionally, while
examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court
cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
64. Thus, ordinarily, the Courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police since the two organs of the State operate in two
specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the Court is,
however, recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent the abuse of
the process by Section 482 of the CrPC.
65. As per the law, to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 of the CrPC, the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material
produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that the
defence is based on sound, reasonable and indubitable facts, and that the
material so produced is such as would clearly defeat or negate the
allegations contained in the FIR without conducting trial. Further, as per
Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor5, the material placed on record has to
be of such impeccable quality that would persuade a reasonable person to
dismiss and condemn the accusations as false. Therefore, in order to meet
the ends of justice, the High Court may be persuaded by its judicial
conscience to prevent the abuse of the process of law.
66. Now adverting to the matter in hand.
5
(2013) 3 SCC 330
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 36 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
67. At this stage, it is pertinent for this Court to refer to the series of
events that led to the filing of the present petition.
68. Initially, FIR no. 16/2018 was registered by the respondent no. 1/
EOW at the instance of several individual investors. In summary, the
assertions made in the said FIR pertained to the alleged fact that
petitioner company and its directors did not have any project land for
construction and still they lured the investors in depositing money to
purchase the units. Further, the developer, with mala fide intentions,
increased the land area 1500 Acres to 4500 Acres without requisite
permissions; and the developer has failed to handover the possession
despite depositing 65% to 85% of the total amount along with other
periphery charges. It was also alleged in the said FIR that the petitioner
initially took payments in its name, however, later on the payments were
taken in the name of one new entity namely „M/s Wave City NH24‟.
Additionally, the complainant had made allegations with regard to
diversion of funds. The relevant paragraphs of the said FIR are as under:
“..To,Deputy Commissioner of police ALBR
Department,Mandir Marg, New Delhi. SUB – Registration of
FIR against (1) Mis. Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt.
Lid., having its office M-4, South Extension Part-II, New
Delhi -110049, and its directors namely (2) Harmandeep
Singh Kandhari (R/o-C-1943, Sector-44, NOIDA-201301,
UP) (3) Mr. Rajinder Singh Chadha (R/o-21,Oak Drive
Chhatapur Farm, New Delhi) (4) Mr. Manpreet Singh
Chadha (R/o-21,Oak Drive Chhatapur Farm, New Delhi),
(5) Mr. Gurjit Singh Kochar(B-11, Chirag Enclave, New
Delhi), (6) Kritika Gupta and (7) other officials/persons
involved in this crime under section 420, 406, 469,468 471
& 1208 of IPC.Sir, The present complaint is preferred
against M/s. Uppal Chadha Hi Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 37 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
having its office at M-4, Mezzanine Floor, South Extension,
Part-II, New Delhi- 110049 and its Directors, after suffering
for 11 years at the hands of the Accused with no visible end
to this abuse in sight. 1.That since the launch of their project
in 2006, Uppal Chadha Hi Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd’s
management and decision makers (current/ Ex- Directors,
sales and marketing team) have been playing with the
investor’s hard earned money and consequently I request
you to look into this matter. 2. The facts leading to the
present complaint are as under; a. That in the year 2003, the
Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) formulated a
policy for the development of a Hi-Tech City thereby
leveraging a platform to the real estate developers to
develop the hi-tech and smart townships with modern
facilities in district Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Said policy
was passed vide Govt. Order No. 6057 /9-A-2003-34-VIVI
DH/03 Ft. 22.11.03 b. That the policy of the GDA was
widely circulated across all leading newspapers in the state
of Uttar Pradesh thus generated interest among the general
public c. That in the month of February 2005, the Agents/
Brokers of Uppal Chadha. Hi Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd
started approaching the public with a early bird • hooking
discount offer on plots in their proposed Hi-Tech Township
project comprising of various projects including our projects
subsequently named “Rosewood Enclave”, “Sunny Wood
Enclave”, “Lime Wood Enclave” & “Crestwood Enclave”
situate in the Villages of Kachera, Dujana & Mehrauli,
purportedly Sectors 7, 15, 16, &17, NH-24, Tehsil &
District, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh comprising of following
facilities and amenities; I. Location near the NI-F- 24, 8
lane expressway; ii 10 km from Delhi border; iii. 7 km from
Indirapuram/ Neida; iv Gated boundary ,v. Audio Video
security; vi . All in house facilities; vii. Independent water/
electric system viii Golf Course; ix Helipads; x I.T
international school, college, shopping malls; xi Plots,
villas, apartments; xiii 24 mtr to 100 mtr wide roads; xiii
Metro train through two routes. xiv Possession within 18
months from the date of booking; e. That project lookedSignature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 38 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
extremely promising especially with the host of propaganda
made by the Developer Company and its Directors through
Newspapers, marketing associates of the Accused Company,
promise of world class amenities at the Hi tech City, the
Directors, Marketing Agents & office sales staff of the
Accused Company further allured me by showing brochures
& layout plan for the Wave City (High Tech Township
Project) of about 1500 acres. The possession of plot was to
be given within (eight) 8 months from the date of allotment
as per the Accused Company documents and the booking
was done at the Company’s office situated at 33, Community
Center, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025. F .That the
Directors of the Accused Company categorically through the
Registration Form for Expression of Interest p0romised the
following to the Complainant at the time of accepting the
booking amount; i Discounted negotiated price; ii
Provisional allotment to be granted within eight (8) months
from the date of execution of Registration Form for
Expression of Interest by the Accused Company Believing
the above representations of the accused company and its
Directors and in pursuit of owing a dream plot and to lead a
quality life, the Complainants paid an initial booking amount
to the Accused company and its Directors. The accused
company and its directors made the Complainants sign .a
two page “Registration Form for Expression of Interest”
(copies enclosed) and receipt against the booking was also
issued by Accused company/ Directors ( Copy enclosed). 3.
That the Directors and the Accused Company neither had
the project land nor any license from the Government w.r.t
the Hi Tech Township project at the time of accepting the
money but believing all the information, representations,
assurances and promises to be true and relying on the brand
UPPAL Group and subsequently WAVE group, invested our
hard earned money in the plots under the Accused
Company’s HI Tech Township Project. 4. That the Directors
of the Accused Company failed to keep their promise of
offering the provisional allotment of the plot even after lapse
of 15 months from the date of booking or refund money with
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 39 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
promised interest. Thereafter feeling deceived and dejected
the Complainants approached the Accused Company for
refund of invested money along with interest. However, the
Directors of the Accused Company through their hired
bouncers and anti-social elements never allowed the
Complainants to meet them personally. As such money
invested was never returned by the Directors and the
Accused Company.5 That the developer had malafide
intention from the beginning which can be ascertained by the
fact that the developer while took the signature of buyer/
Allottee never signed or put their company seal in our copy.
6. On 16th October. 2006 the Complainants received a letter
stating that (1) the Detailed Project Report had been
approved by the UP Government and (2) That Master Plan
is ready and(3) the funds for acquisition for the township
project have already been deposited with the Government.
We visited the office of the Company at New Friends Colony,
New Delhi to inquire about details of the allotment, but were
always told that since it was such a huge and ambitious
project which will take some time. At this stage, the
undersigned Complainants felt that they have been deceived
but again the complainants were convinced & assured
regarding the handing over of the plots very soon and that
too within the time as promised. At this juncture they were
provided with a C D containing the animated graphics of the
proposed Hi Tech Township, the contents of which are
indeed mesmerizing. 7.That on and around 30th November
2009, the complainants received a letter slating that all
necessary licenses and approvals were received , the first
phase of 1500 Acres had been approved by the government
and the details about sectors and plots were being-finalized
with them government but the allotted only to registered
applicants. 8. That on and around 15th June 2011, we
suddenly received a demand letter attached herewith) signed
by one Mr. Girish Gulla, Vice President of the Accused
Company. To our shock and surprise the name of the
company, the township and the address of the company were
all changed and NOW ALL CHEQUE PAYMENTS WERE
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 40 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
SOUGHT IN A NEW ENTITY NAMELY “WAVE CITY NH
24”. We also learned that the Company Had accepted 65% –
85% money in lump sum from other applicants and
unilaterally chose to allot Phase 1 to such applicants who
paid money in 2011 only while keeping old applicants
(Complainants in this case) in the dark and thereby
depriving our right for first allotment. When we raised
objection to this It was informed by the Developer that the
size of the above mentioned township project had increased
from 1500 ‘to 4500 Acres hence we would also get our plots
shortly. 9. That thereafter, the Complainant also tried to
seek refund with interest as agreed but to no avail. Although,
we were assured that our investment would be safe and that
if not immediately, the allotment would be done within a
year as development in the township was under progress.
Finally in Aug 2012, we were offered allotment in an
installment plan, no agreement was offered, and Peripheral
Development Charges were added, which raised the rate per
Sq. yard considerably. Along with the payment the Accused
company through its Directors has also collected the Service
Charge and that same charges were deposited with the
Government Account or not is also suspicious. Now even
after more than 11 years and 65% to 85% payment we are
yet to gel possession of the assured plot. 10. The Directors of
the Accused Company, and its employees apparently have
succeeded in conniving and fraudulently siphoning our hard
earned money fromM/s. UPPAL CHADDHA Hi TECH
DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. TO THEIR NEW ENTITY
NAMELY M/s. WAVECITY NH24 or to such other project of
the group. If the investigation and the forensic audit of the
documents of the Accused Company and their Directors are
done after the registration of FIR, many other complainant
will join as there may be the lump-sum forgery of more than
1 Crores by the Accused Company, its directors &
employees. It is also pertinence to mention that the accused
persons are apparently involved in taking money from the
several people, siphoning huge amount of funds from the
present company to another. 11. As on today, no approved
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 41 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
developed plots as per law are available with the Accused
Company and farmers are seen farming in their land. In fact,
there is neither requisite permission from the Competent
Authority nor the work of project is going on and there are
no chances of completion of project in the near future
because we understand the project land in question is in the
possession of the respective farmers and they are cultivating
their land. One Ms. Kajal Chibber, Manager Sales, who had
been working with the company probably since last 8 years
and apparently knows the real facts of the company, had
revealed the above information. 12. When the Complainant
took out the maps and demanded to identify the buyers plot
on the ground Ms. Kajal Chibber admitted that there were
no plots, the map was just design and no sectors are existing.
The company has already collected Approx. about 65% to
85% plus other periphery charges from the Complainants by
then and the details of total collection is annexed herewith.
When the plots are not even available how developer can
charge periphery charges from buyers? Also malafide
intention of builder is further evident from the fact that they
have charged preferential location charge from all the
buyers instead of charging only from those whose plot is
corner plot or in the main road or facing the park etc.13 . As
per the knowledge of the complainants, there is neither
Approved Lay-out of complete 4500 acres, nor lay out plan
has been approved for sector 7, 15, 16 and 17, NH-24,
Ghaziabad where the plots were lo be allotted by the
company. Even no provisional allotment can be done by the
Colonizer/Builder and if the same has been done, it attracts
section 420 & 406 and other punishable sections of IPC. 14.
Moreover, the Accused Company and its Directors in order
to raise funds from the market for their undergoing projects
came out with a new fraudulent plan Called Wave Hi-Tech
City, NH-24, Ghaziabad and the company & its directors
collected huge amount of money from the buyers with
malafide intention of not transferring /delivering or part
with the possession of land. In fact they pressurized the
buyers so much to pay that few even took personal loans
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 42 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
from bank to clear the dues. Right from the beginning the
company & its directors had dishonest and fraudulent
intentions which clearly are borne out from their subsequent
conduct and actions. The Phase II of the project has not
been started and the same has now been included in the
Greater Noida Area in RERA recently whereas they have
always been mentioning the location as Ghaziabad. The
company & its directors were aware that they would not get
possession of land and despite that they continued collecting
money from the various buyers including complainants. As
per recent news article UP Government has apparently
allowed farmer to sell land directly to prospective buyer as
Wave has not paid the money and has been long overdue.
The money collected has been, mis appropriated/converted
and diverted towards the other projects of the accused/
Directors. Further, the accused had no intention to honor
the terms since inception. Directors and senior officials are
the beneficiary of the money collected from the Complainant
as they were in charge of the functioning of company had
done collusion & connivance and hatched a criminal
conspiracy with sole object to cheat the innocent
complainant/public. The malafide design and ulterior
conspiracy is evident from the facts above. The modus
operandi has been done to deprive the buyers of their legal
rights of ownership/possession by prevailing upon the
unsuspecting buyers to sign the standard application forms
concealing the terms and conditions by using deception and
thereafter rely on certain clause to wriggle out of their
promises and to put an end to the letters/agreement/any
other documents.15. In this way, there has been false
inducement on behalf of the company & its representative.
The company has mis represented & given false inducement
to the complainants and received money from the
complainant as consideration of the plot with an intention of
not handing over the plots to the complainants even after
more than 11 years. This is cheating, fraud/forgery, etc.,
which caused wrongful gain to the company and wrongful
loss to the complainant attracting the above mentioned
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 43 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
sections under IPC. The Agreement executed by the company
has been found to be fraudulent with the guilty mind. Thus,
company and its officials got the wrongful gain. and on the
other hand the complainants has suffered wrongful loss. In
view of the above and our earlier representation before
EOW, there are serious allegations of fraud, cheating,
fabrication, forgery, etc., involving the amount of Approx.
65% to 85% froths each individual buyer and as a group it
may go much beyond Rs. 100 Crores making wrongful gain
to the company, its directors/shareholder and wrongful loss
to the complaints .You are therefore requested to register the
FIR against the subject mentioned persons . Thanking you
Yours faithfully, Complainants:- K . Ramesh and Kaveri
Ramesh And 19 others name with signature . To The Duty
office P.S .EOW ,Mandir Marg New Delhi IT is Summited
that a complainant from Sh. K Ramesh And Others ,Vide No
4809/DCP /EOW ,Date .12/10/2017 was received in the
EOW. The enquiry was conducted the Undersigned .From
the enquiry conducted contents A the complaint Prime facie
a Criminal case is made out, hence a case u/s 420/406/120B
IPC registered investigated handed our to me undersigned .
The rukka has been handed over to you Date and time of
occurrence – onward Feb 2005 Place of occurrence – M -4
mezzanine Floor South Extension Part -II New Delhi –
110049 Date And Time of Hended over Rukka lnsp Umesh
Sharma D-151. PIS NO 16970119 PS EOW Action taken at
police station at this time lnsp Umesh Sharma D-151. PIS
NO 16970119 PS EOW came in the police station and
produced the above mentioned complaint for the registration
of case. Case has been registered. Copy of FIR and original
Rukka is being handed over to lnsp Umesh Sharma D-151.
PIS NO 16970119 PS EOW for further investigation. Copy
of FIR will be delivered to concerned officers through
OAK.SI /DO..”
69. It is noted that the aforesaid FIR was compounded on the basis of
settlement under Section 320 of the CrPC by the Court concerned vide
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 44 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
order dated 19th November, 2019 and the accused persons, including the
petitioner herein were acquitted. Relevant paragraphs of the said order are
as under:
“..Heard. Perused.
In the present case, the complainant has amicably settled the
matter with the accused and the accused has already settled
with other victims and undertakes to compensate the
remaining victims.
In view of the same, the application under section 320
Cr.P.C moved on behalf of accused is allowed. Matter is
allowed to be compounded. Accused persons are acquitted
for offences under sections 406/420/120B IPC.
File be consigned to record room…”
70. Thereafter, another FIR no. 49/2021 was registered at the
respondent no. 1 EOW at the instant of one individual investor, thereby,
alleging that the petitioner company lured the investors and accepted their
money, however, despite lapse of inordinate delay and payment of 65% –
85% of money, the developer has failed to hand over the possession. It
was further alleged that the developer has siphoned off the funds
deposited by the investors and had increased the project land area from
1500 Acres to 4500 Acres without necessary approvals. It was also
alleged in the said FIR that the petitioner initially took payments in its
name, however, later on the payments were taken in the name of one new
entity namely „M/s Wave City NH24‟. The relevant portion of the said
FIR is as under:
“..10/10/2019 To, Deputy Commissioner of police ALBR
Department, Mandir Marg, EOW. New Delhi, 110001 SUB-
Plot Booked in Uppal Chadha Hitech Developers Pvt Ltd in
Ghaziabad in 2006 SHALINI GUPTA AGED 47 YEARSSignature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 45 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
REG. NO. 2522. dated 18/12/2005. PROVISIONAL PLOT
NO. 1207 IN CREST WOOD ENCLAVE , SECTOR 15.
Amount Paid Rs 12.70.760.00 CHARU RASTOGI AGED 45
YEARS REGN NO. 2521dated 18/12/2005 4N1 V
PROVISIONAL PLOT NO.996 IN CREST WOOD
ENCLAVE SECTOR 15 Amount paid Rs 13,02.743.00 USHA
RASTOGI AGED 72 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN) REGN NO.
2520 dated 18/12/2005. PROVISIONAL PLOT NO.618,
CREST WOOD ENCLAVE, SECTOR 15 Rs 13.02,743.00
PAID SUDHA GUPTA . 71 YEARS (SENIOR CITZEN)
REGN. NO. 2523 dated 18/12/2005. PROVISIONAL PLOT
NO.644 CRESTWOOD ENCLAVE , SECTOR 15, Rs
12,70,760.00 PAID Complaint against following persons for
Registration of FIR (1) M/s, Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech
Developers Pvt. LTD., having its office M-4, South Extension
Part-II, New Delhi-110049, and its directors namely (2)
Harmandeep Singh Kandhari R/o- C-1943, Sector-44,
NOIDA-201301, UP (3) Mr. Rajinder Singh Chadha (Rio-
21, Oak Drive Chhatapur Farm, New Delhi) (4) Mr.
Manpreet Singh Chadha (R/o- 21, Oak Drive Chhatapur
Farm, New Delhi), (5) Mr. Gurjit Singh Kochar (B-11,
Chirag Enclave, New Delhi), (6) Kritika Gupta , Mr Amit
Miital, Mr R.K Pathak.Mr Alok Agnihotri, Mr R.K JAIN, (7)
other officials/persons involved in this crime under section
420, 406, 469,468, 471 & 120 B of IPC.Sir,The present
complaint is preferred against M/s. Uppal Chadha Hi Tech
Developers Pvt Ltd having its office at M-4, Mezzanine
Floor.South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi- 110049 and its
Directors, after suffering for 13 years at the hands of the
Accused with no visible end to this abuse in sight. 1. That
since the launch of their project in 2006, Uppal Chadha Hi
Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd’s management and decision
makers (current/Ex-Directors, sales and marketing team)
have been playing with the investor’s hard earned money
and consequently I request you to look into this matter. 2.
The facts leading to the present complaint are as under: a.
That in the year 2003 the ·Ghaziabad Development Authority
(GOA) formulated a policy for the development of a Hi-TechSignature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 46 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
City thereby leveraging a platform to the real estate
developers to develop the hi-tech and smart townships with
modern facilities in district Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Said
policy was passed vide Govt. Order No. 6057/9-A-2003-34-
VIVDH/03 Ft. 22.11.03 b. That the policy of the GOA was
widely circulated across all leading newspapers in the state
of Uttar Pradesh thus generated interest amount the general
public c. That in the month of October 2005, the
Agents/Brokers of Uppal Chadha. Hi Tech Developers Pvt.
Ltd started approaching the public with a early bird hooking
discount offer on plots in their proposed Hi-Tech Township
project at Ghaziabad NH 24. The following facilities and
amenities were described by agents / brokers I . Location
near the NH 24, 8 lane expressway; ii 10 km from delhi
border; iii. 7km from indirapuram/Noida; iv Gated
boundary, v. Audio Video security; vi. All in house facilities;
vii. Independent water/electric system viii. Golf Course; xiv.
Helipads; x. T international school, college, shopping malls;
xi xi. Plots, villas, apartments; xii. 24 ltr to 100 mtr wide
roads; xiii. Metro train through two routes. Xiv. Possession
within 18 months from the date of booking; d. That project
looked extremely promising especially with the host of
propaganda made by the Developer Company and its
Directors through Newspapers, marketing associates of the
Accused Company, promise of world class amenities at the
Hi tech City, the Directors, Marketing Agents & office sales
staff of the Accused Company further allured me by showing
brochures & layout plan for the Wave City (High Tech
Township Project) of about 1500 acres. The possession of
plot was to be given within (eight)8 months from the date of
allotment as per the Accused Company documents and the
booking was done at the Company’s office situated at 33,
Community Center, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-
110025.F .That the Directors of the Accused Company
categorically through the Registration Form for Expression
of Interest promised the following to the Complainant at the
time of accepting the booking amount; I Discounted
negotiated price; ii. Provisional allotment to be granted
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 47 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
within eight (8) months from the date of execution of
Registration Form for Expression of Interest by the Accused
Company Believing the above representations of the accused
company and its Directors and in pursuit of owing a dream
plot and to lead a quality life, the Complainants paid an
initial booking amount to the Accused company and its
Directors. The accused company and its directors made the
complainants sign a two page “Registration Form for
Expression of Interest” (copies enclosed) and receipt against
the booking was also issued by Accused company/Directors
(Copy enclosed). 3. That the Directors and the Accused
Company neither had the project land nor any license from
the Government w.r.t the Hi Tech Township project at the
time of accepting the money but believing all the
information, representations, assurances and promises to be
true and relying on the brand UPPAL Group and
subsequently WAVE group, invested our hard earned money
in the plots under the Accused Company’s Hi Tech Township
Project. 4. That the Directors of the Accused Company failed
to keep their promise of offering the provisional allotment of
the plot even after lapse of 15 months from the date of
booking or refund money with promised interest. Thereafter
feeling deceived and dejected the Complainants approached
the Accused Company for refund of invested money along
with interest. However, the Directors of the Accused
Company through their hired bouncers and anti-social
elements never allowed the Complainants to meet them
personally. As such money invested was never returned by
the Directors and the Accused Company. 5 That the
developer had malafide intention from the beginning which
can be ascertained by the fact that the developer while took
the signature of buyer/Allotee never signed or put their
company seal in our copy 6. On 16th October.2006 the
Complainants received a letter stating that (1) the Detailed
Project Report had been approved by the UP Government
and (2) The Master Plan is ready and (3) The funds for
acquisition for the township project have already been
deposited with the Government. We visited the office of the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 48 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
Company at New Friends Colony, New Delhi to inquire
about details of the allotment, but were always told that
since it was such a huge and ambitious project which will
take some time. At this stage, the undersigned Complainants
felt that they have been deceived but again the complainants
were convinced & assured regarding the handing over of the
plots very soon and that too within the time as promised. At
this juncture they were provided with a C D containing the
animated graphics of the proposed Hi Tech Township, the
contents of which are indeed mesmerizing. 7. That on and
around 30th November 2009, the complainants received a
letter stating that all necessary licenses and approvals were
received, the first phase of 1500 Acres had been approved by
the government and the details about sectors and plots were
being- finalized with- them government but the allotted only
to registered applicants. 8. Initially they have taken money in
the name of Uppal Chadha HiTech Developers Pvt Ltd but
on and around 15th June 2011, we suddenly received a
demand letter attached herewith) signed by one Mr. Girish
Gulla, Vice President of the Accused Company. To our shock
and surprise the name of the company, the township and the
address of the company were all changed and NOW ALL
CHEQUE PAYMENTS WERE SOUGHT IN A NEW ENTITY
NAMELY “WAVE CITY NH24”. Last payment OF AROUND
Rs 700,00.00 to Rs 8,00,000.00 we all had made in march
2012, in the name of “WAVE CITY NH 24″We also learned
that the Company Had accepted 65%-85% money in lump
sum from other applicants and unilaterally chose to allot
Phase 1 to such applicants who paid money in 2011 only
while keeping old applicants (Complainant in this case) in
the dark and thereby depriving our right for first allotment.
When we raised objection to this it was informed by the
Developer that the size of the above mentioned township
project had increased from 1500 to 4500 Acres hence we
would also get our plots shortly. 10-Till March 2012 , all the
above applicants has paid the following amounts by account
payee cheques.Now We want to refund our money along with
interest @18% p.a which they have charged from customers
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 49 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
etc. as.follows: 1-Original Application SHALINI GUPTA
REGISTRATION NO. 2522 Sr No. Date Che. No. Bank
Name & partculars Amount paid Interest @18% P.A Total
amount due as on 10/10/2019 1- 03/11/2005 Application
Received 2- 18/12/2005 Receipt issued vide Registration No.
2522, Ch. No. 060713 dated 03/11/2005 drawn on Jammu &
Kasmir bank Ltd 1,87,500.00 472500.00 660000.00 3-
07/03/2006 Ch. No. 060733 drawn on J& K Bank Ltd dated
03/01/2006 187500.00 455625.00 643125.00 4- 02/05/2006
Ch. 060747 drawn on Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd
20/04/2006 187500.00 438750 626250.00 5-03/04/2012
Amount Paid as Installment 708260.00 956151.00
1664411.00 6- 14/11/2013 Application for allotment applied
by Shalini Gupta 7- 2014 RESIDENTIAL PLOT ALLOTEE
(S) ARRANGEMENT 8-CLAIM FOR MENTAL
HARRASEMENT ETC 15,00,000.00 5093786.00 2- Original
Application USHA RASTOGI REGISTRATION NO. 2520 Sr
No. Date Che. No. Bank Name & partculars Amount paid
lnterest@18% Total amount due as on 10/10/2019 1-
03/11/2005 Application Received 2- 04/11/2005 Receipt
issued vide Registration No. 2522, Ch. No. 493591 dated
03/11/2005 drawn on SYNDICATE BANK 1,87,500.00
472500.00 660000.00 3- 07/03/2006 Ch. No. 0323780 drawn
on SYNDICATE BANK dated 31/01/2006 187500.00
455625.00 643125.00 4-02/05/2006 Ch. 337536drawn On
syndicate bank 02/05/2006 187500.00 438750.00 626250.00
5-03/04/2012 Amount Paid AS Installment CH 726705
SYNDICATE BANK 740243.00 999328.00 1739571.00 6-
14/11/2013 Application for allotment applied by USGA
RASTOGI 7- 2924 RESIDENTIAL PLOT ALLOTEE(S)
ARRANGEMENT CLAIM FOR MENTAL HARRASEMENT
1500000.00 5168946.00 3 Original Application SUDHA
GUPTA REGISTRATION NO. 2523 Sr No. Date Che. No.
Bank Name & particulars Amount paid Interest @18% Total
amount due as on 10/10/2019 1- 03/11/2005 Application
Received 2- 18/12/2005 Receipt issued vide Registration No.
2522, Ch. No. 374722 dated 04/11/2005 drawn on STATE
BANK OF INDIA 1,87,500.00 472500.00 660000.00 3-
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 50 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
07/03/2006 Ch. No. 374721 drawn on STATE BANK OF
INDIA dated 31/01/2006 187500.00 455625 643125.00 4-
02/05/2006 Ch. 374723 drawn on STATE BANK OF INDIA
30/04/2006 187500.00 438750.00 626250.00 5-03/04/2012
Amount Paid AS Installment CH. 677770 STATE BANK OF
!NOIA 708260.00 956151.00 1664411.00 6-14/11/2013
Application for allotment applied by SUDHA GUPTA 7-
2014 RESIDENTIAL PLOT ALLOTEE(S) ARRANGEMENT
CLAIM FOR MENTAL HARASSEMENT 1500000.00
5093786.00 4- Original Application CHARU RASTOGI
REGISTRATION NO. 2521 Sr No. Date Che. No. Bank
Name & particulars Amount paid Interest Total amount due
as on 10/10/2019 1- 03/11/2005 Application Received 2-
04/11/2005 Receipt issued vide Registration No. 2522, Ch.
No. 424528 dated 1,87,500.00 472500.00 660000.00
03/11/2005 drawn on HDFC 3- 07/03/2006 Ch. No. 424529
drawn on HDFC BANK dated 31/01/2006 187500.00
455625.00 643125.00 4- 02/05/2006 Ch. 337535 drawn on
SYNDICATE BANK 03/05/2006 187500.00 438750.00
626250.00 5- 03/04/2012 Amount Paid AS Installment CH
038846 drawn on1 & K BANK LTD 740243.00 999328.00
1739571.00 6-14/11/2013 Application for allotment applied
by Shalini Gupta 7- 2014 RESIDENTIAL PLOT
ALLOTEE(S) ARRANGEMENT CLAIM FOR MENTAL
HARASEMENT 1500000.00 5168946.00 The Uppal
Chandha Hi tech Developers pvt ltd has not allotted any
confirm Plot to the above named persons Only provisional
Allotment has been made . They have started development in
last 5-6 years back at site and has developed sector
2.3.4.5.6.7.and already has done Registry in the name of
Customers in the year 2016 onwards . They are also
developing some portion of Group Housing in 2014 and also
doing Registry of flats from 2017 onwards, but no confirm
plot allotted to the above said persons. All the above persons
were cheated by Company since 2006 to till to date. 9. That
thereafter, the complainant also tried to seek refund with
interest as agreed but to no avail. Although. We were
assured that our investment would be safe and that if not
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 51 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
immediately; the allotment would be done within a year as
development in the township was under progress. Finally in
Aug 2012, we were offered allotment in an installment plan,
no agreement was offered, and Peripheral Development
Charges were added, which raised the rate per Sq. yard
considerably. Along with the payment the Accused Company
through its Directors has also collected the Service Charge
and that same charges were deposited with the government
Account or not is also suspicious. Now even after more than
11 years and 65% to 85% payment we are yet to get
possession of the assured plot. 10. The Directors of the
Accused Company and its employees apparently have
succeeded in conniving and fraudulently siphoning our hard
earned money from M/s. UPPAL CHADDHA HI TECH
DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD TO THEIR NEW ENTITY
NAMELY M/s. WAVECITY NH24 or to such other project of
the group. If the investigation and the forensic audit of the
documents of the Accused Company and their Directors are
done after the registration of FIR, many other complainants
will join as there may be the lump-sum forgery of more than
1 Lacs crores by the Accused Company, its directors &
employees. It is also pertinence to mention that the accused
persons are apparently involved in taking money from the
several people, siphoning huge amount of funds from the
present company to another. 11. As on today, no approved
developed plots as per law are available with the Accused
Company and farmers are seen farming in their land. In fact,
there is neither requisite permission from the Competent
Authority nor the work of project is going on and there are
no chances of completion of project in the near future
because we understand the project land in question is in the
possession of the respective farmers and they are cultivating
their land. One Ms. Kajal Chibber, Manager Sales, who had
been working with the company probably since last 8 years
and apparently knows the real facts of the company, had
revealed the above information. 12. When the Complainant
took out the maps and demanded to identify the buyers plot
on the ground Ms. Kajal Chibber admitted that there were
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 52 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
no plots, the map was just design and no sectors are existing.
The company has already collected Approx. about 65% to
85% plus other periphery charges from the Complaints by
then and the details of total collection is annexed herewith.
When the plots are not even available how developer can
charge periphery charges from buyers? Also malafide
intention of builder is further evident from the fact that they
have charged preferential location charge from all the
buyers instead of charging only from those whose plot is
corner plot or in the main road or facing the park etc. 13. As
per the knowledge of the complainants, there is neither
Approved Lay-out of complete 4500 acres, not lay out plan
has been approved for sector , 15, 16 and 17, NH-24,
Ghaziabad where the plots were to be allotted by the
company. Even no provisional allotment can be done by the
Colonizer/Builder and if the same has been done, it attracts
section 420 & 406 and other punishable sections of IPC. 14.
Moreover, the Accused Company and its Directors in order
to raise funds from the market for their undergoing projects
came out with a new fraudulent plan Called Wave Hi-Tech
City, NH-24, Ghaziabad and the company ,& its directors
collected huge amount of money from the buyers with
malafide intention of not transferring/delivering or part with
the possession of land. In fact they pressurized the buyers so
much to pay that few even took personal loans from bank to
clear the dues. Right from the beginning the company & its
directors had dishonest and fraudulent intentions which
clearly are borne out from their subsequent conduct and
actions. The Phase II of the project has not been started and
the same has now been included in the Greater Noida Area
in RERA recently whereas they have always been mentioning
the location as Ghaziabad. The company & its directors
were aware that they would not get possession of land and
despite that they continued collecting money from the
various buyers including complainants. As per recent news
article UP Government has apparently allowed farmer to
sell land directly to prospective buyer as Wave has not paid
the money and has been long overdue. The money collected
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 53 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
has been, Misappropriated/converted and diverted towards
the other projects of the accused/Directors. Further, the
accused had no intention to honor the terms since inception.
Directors and senior officials are the beneficiary of the
money collected from the Complainant as they were in
charge of the functioning of company had done collusion &
connivance and hatched a criminal conspiracy with sole
object to cheat the innocent complainant public. The
malafide design and ulterior conspiracy is evident from the
facts above. The modus operandi has been done to derive the
buyers of their legal of ownership/possession by prevailing
upon the unsuspecting buyers to sign the standard
application forms concealing the terms and conditions by
using deception and thereafter rely on certain clause to
wriggle out of their promises and to put an end to the
letter/agreement/any other documents. 15. In this way, there
has been false inducement on behalf of the company & its
representative. The company has Misrepresented & given
false inducement to the complainants and received money
from the complaint as consideration of the plot with an
intention of not handing over the plots to the complainants
even more than 11 years. This is cheating, fraud/forgery,
etc., which caused wrongful gain to the company and
wrongful loss to the complainant attracting the above
mentioned sections under IPC. The Agreement executed by
the company has been found to be fraudulent with the guilty
mind. Thus, company and its officials got the wrongful gain,
and on the other hand the complainant has suffered wrongful
loss. In view of the above and our earlier representation
before EOW, there are serious allegations of fraud,
cheating, fabrication, forgery, etc., involving the amount of
Approx. 65% to 85% froths each individual buyer and as a
group it may go much beyond Rs. 100 Crores making
wrongful gain to the company, its directors/shareholder and
wrongful loss to the complaints. You are therefore requested
to register the FIR against the subject mentioned persons.
Thanking you yours faithfully, Complainants:- Sd/English 1-
SHALINI GUPTA D 105 SOUTY CITY URGAON. Mo.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 54 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
09810663256 2- CHRU RASTOGI B 42/2 EAST OF KAI
LASH NEW DELHI 110065 09810663256 3- USHA
RASTOGI B 42/2/ EAST OF KAILASH NEW DELHI 110065
Mo.09810162742 4-SUDHA GUPTA D 105 SOUTH CITY 1
GURGAON , HARYANA. Mo. 09810663256 COPY TO, 1-
Shri Narendra Modi Ji, Hon’ble Prime Minister of India
South Block, Raisina Hills, New Delhi 110001 09810663256
2. Shri Amit Shah Ji Hon’ble Home Minister of India North
Block, New Delhi 110001 3. The Commissioner of police ,
Police Head Quarter, New Delhi110001 4. The Secretary,
Union Home Ministry, North Block, New Delhi. 5. The Vice
Chairman Ghaziabad Development Authority Vikas Path,
Near Old Bus Stand, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 6-
The Senior Suprintendent of Police Collectorate Ghaziabad
,CZ58, Hapur Road, Old Block C, Sector 18, Kavi Nagar,
Pradesh 201002 Ghaziabad, Uttarpradesh 201002 7- The
Hon’ble Chief Minister of Uttarpradesh 5, Kali Das Marg
Lucknow, 226002, UttarPradesh 8- The Chief Justice of
Delhi High Court Delhi High Court, New Delhi 9- The Chief
Justice of India, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi 110001
10- The Chief Minister , Chief Minister Office, Delhi
Goverenment , DELHI. To, The Duty Officer P .S. EOW
Delhi Sir, It is submitted that present complaint of Mrs
Shalini Gupta was received at EOW vide reference No. 0-
8052/19. After conducting of the enquiry Prima-Facie
offence U/s 420/406/120-B IPC is made out. Kindly register
a case U/s 420/406/120-B IPC and investigation of the case
be handed over to me as per directions of the Senior
Officers. Date and time of occurrence: Since Years 2003
Onwards pace of occurrence: At M/s Uppal Chadha Hi-tech
Developers Pvt. Ltd M-4, South Extension New Delhi. Date
& time of presenting Rukka- 5.30 PM Sd/English SI Ajay
Moral Sec VI/EOW Delhi 0-3383, PIS 28060399. Action
taken at police station at this time SI Ajay Moral Sec
VI/E0W, D-3383, PIS 28060399, Mandir Marg, New Delhi
came at duty officer room of police station EOW and
produced the above mentioned complaint for the registration
of case. Case has been registered. Copy of FIR and original
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 55 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
Rukka is being handed over to SI Ajay Moral Sec VI/EOW,
D- 3383, PIS 28060399, Mandir Marg, New Delhi for
further investigation. Copy of FIR will be delivered to
concerned officers through OAK. ASI/DO..”
71. The aforesaid FIR was quashed by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties vide order
dated 22nd December, 2022. Relevant portion of the same is as under:
“..The matter has been received on transfer.
This is a petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 49/2021 dated
12.03.2021 u/s 420/406/120B IPC registered at PS EOW. As
per the FIR, it is stated that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 had
booked flats with petitioner No. 1 in the year 2005 and had
made substantial payments towards booking of the said flats.
Since the land was to be allotted by the UP Gove1nment, it
was allotted much later in time. The petitioner was unable to
comply with its obligation. Hence, the FIR.
During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have
arrived at a settlement wherein the flats have been given to
the petitioners and they are satisfied with the allotment and
do not wish to prosecute the FIR any further.
The petitioners are present in Court and are identified by
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Adv.
The authorized representative of the respondent, Mr.
Sandeep Gupta is present and is making the statement for
and on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
The parties state that they have arrived at the settlement out
of their own free will without any threat, pressure, coercion
or undue influence.
Mr. Gupta states that all the respondents are satisfied with
the settlement and do not have any dispute with the
petitioners and have no objection to the FIR being quashed.
In this view of the matter, I am of the view that it is in the
interest of justice I am convinced that quashing of such
proceedings on account of compromise would bring about
peace and would secure ends of justice. This should not be
treated as a legal precedent as in this case, the proceedingsSignature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 56 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
are quashed as the respondent has decided to put a quietus
to the matter. The Court does not see any fruitful purpose if
criminal proceedings are permitted to be prosecuted any
further. It is a fit case for quashing. In this view of the
matter, there is no reason to continue the proceedings.
However, the FIR is of the year 2021 and considerable time
of police and judicial time has been wasted on account of
commission and omission on behalf of the parties. After
investigation, the police has filed a chargesheet.
In this view of the matter, the petitioner must pay some costs.
Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 shall pay Rs. 50,000/- each to
DHCLSC which shall be utilised for counselling POCSO
victims.
Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 shall also pay Rs. 50,000/- each to
Delhi Police Welfare Fund.
The cost shall be paid within 4 weeks from today. The
receipt of the cost shall be placed on record failing which
the file shall be placed before the Court.
With these directions, the FIR No. No. 49/2021dated
12.03.2021 u/s 420/406/120B IPC registered at PS EOW, is
hereby quashed.
The petition is disposed of…”
72. Subsequent to the above, another FIR no. 55/2023 was registered
with the respondent no. 1 EOW at the instance of a complaint made by
one Mrs. Shobhna Gupta against the petitioner and several others. The
complainant in the said FIR alleged that the developer had failed to
handover the possession of the project despite the inordinate delay and
acceptance of more than 65% – 85% of money. Further, initially the
petitioner took payments in the name of the petitioner company itself,
however, later on, with mala fide intentions, the petitioner demanded
money in the name of one new entity namely „M/s Wave City NH24‟.
The content of the said FIR also reveals that the complainant had alleged
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 57 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
that the petitioner increased the project area from 1500 Acres to 4500
Acres without any requisite permission. Relevant portion of the same is
as under:
“..To
Office of The Special Commissioner Of Police
Economic Offences Wing
P .S Mandir Marg Complex
New Delhi-110001
SUBJECT: Registration of FIR against accused persons:-
(1) M/s Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. ltd. having
its office at Mezzanine Floor, M-4 South Extension Part-II,
Delhi-110049 (2) Harmandeep Singh Kandhari S/o
Gurdeep Singh Kandhari Rio C-193, Sector 44, Gautam
Budh Nagar, Noida 201301, Uttar Pradesh (3) Rajiv Gupta
S/o Chunni Lal Gupta Rio G-68, Pocket G, Sarita Vihar,
South Delhi-110076 (4) Ginni Chadha D/o Narender Singh
Chadha Rio S-559, Ground Floor, Greater Kailash Part-II,
Delhi-110048, (5) Sanjeev Jain S/o Harish Chand Jain Rio
58, Krishan Kuni Extension, Gali no. 2, Part-I, Laxmi
Nagar, Shakar Pur Baramad, Delhi-110092, (6) Rahul
Chauhan office at Mezzanine Floor, M-4 South Extension
Part-II, Delhi-110049 and (7) Manpreet Singh Chadha S/o
Gurdeep Singh Chadha Rio 21, Oak Drive, Chattarpur
Farm, New Delhi-110074 and (8) other officials/persons
involved in crime u/s 420, 406, 468, 469,471, 34, 120B IPC.
Sir,
The present complaint is being filed against the accused no.
1 company, its present directors i.e accused nos. 2 to 6, its
ex-director i.e accused no. 7 and other officials/ persons
who have cheated public and innocent investors of their
hard earned money by luring them to invest in their
township projects and have till date not allotted the plots to
them including the present complainant.
That in the year 2006 accused no.1 company/ M/s Uppal
Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. under the
directorship and aide of accused no.2/Harmandeep Singh
Kandhari and accused no. 7/ Manpreet Singh Chadha had
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 58 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
started various Hi-Tech Township projects in Ghaziabad
with proposed high-class facilities and amenities of
international schools, colleges, hospitals, wide roads, metro
connectivity, world class malls and promised possession
within 18 months from the date of booking. That the agents
and brokers of M/s Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt.
Ltd started approaching the public with early bird discounts
and also gave advertisements in the national newspapers
giving promising advertisements for registering and
booking flats in township projects located in Ghaziabad.
That the agents and the directors of M/s Uppal Chadha Hi-
Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd allured public at large including
the complainant by showing brochures and layout plans of
Wave City (Hi-Tech Township Project) spread across 1500
acres and showed them a rosy picture of owning a dream
plot and live a quality life in the Hi-Tech city.
That by alluring numerous homebuyers including the
complainant in their promises, the agents and the directors
of the company made the complainant sign Registration
Form for Expression of Interest for 350 sq. yard plot for
township at Ghaziabad and receipts against the booking
was also issued to the complainant against the payment of
booking amount of Rs.7,87,500/- paid at then office of
accused no. 1 company at 33, Community Center, New
Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025 and the remaining
amount at the rate of Rs. 7500/ sq. yard was to be paid upon
grant of provisional allotment. That at time of signing the
Registration Form for Expression of Interest, the
complainant was promised that the provisional allotment
shall be granted within 8 months of from the date of
execution of the registration form.
That even after the passage of more than an year when no
allotment was given to the complainant and several other
investors, complainant went to the office of accused no.1
company to know the status of the project and meet with the
directors of the company, however, complainant as well as
others were again given fake assurances and was not
allowed to meet the with the directors of the company. That
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 59 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
the complainant on several occasions visited the offices of
the accused company but every time only assurances were
given and time was sought by the accused persons and their
representatives on account that it’s a large project and it
will take some time.
That in the year 2009, complainant received a letter stating
that all licenses and approvals were received and the first
phase of 1500 Acre had been approved by the government,
and the details about the sectors and plots were being
finalised with the government and will be allotted to the
registered applicants. Therefore it is pertinent to mention
that at the time of booking of the plots, the accused persons
neither had the project land in hand nor had the requisite
licenses/approvals from the government authority.
That in November 2011, when complainant had lost all
hopes of getting the dream plot in the township project in
Ghaziabad, a demand letter was received from accused
persons to show interest for allotment of plot. Complainant
was shocked to find out that now the payments were to be
paid in the name of new entity Wave City NH 24 which was
previous being paid in the name of M/s Uppal Chadha Hi-
Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. Complainant further got to know
that accused persons had accepted 65- 85% money in lump-
sum from other applicants and unilaterally chose to alot
phase 1 to such applicants who paid the money in 2011 only
and deprived complainant as well as several others of their
right to first allotment.
That being aggrieved and feeling cheated, complainant
again approached accused company and its representatives
and sought clarifications about the allotment and regarding
the payment into the new entity and regarding the time that
would be taken for final allotment of their plot and
Complainant was assured that the project size has been
increased from 1500 acres to 4500 acres and since
Complainant is a registered plot owner, the complainant
can apply for allotment of their plot at anytime upon
submitting the identity proof, payment of Rs.7500/sq. yard.
That since the accused company and its representatives did
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 60 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
not have ready to allot plots in hand and considering their
past behaviour, the complainant decided to exercise the
right of allotment of their plot when the plots were readily
available with the accused company.
That thereafter, complainant on numerous occasions visited
the office of accused persons and even the proposed
township, however, on every visit the complainant was told
that the plots will be available soon and demanded her to
pay some of allotment amount first. During every visit by
complainant, she came across hundreds of investors who
had paid 85% of the amount and were still running from
pillar to post for being allotted the plot in the proposed
township.
That due to the cheating and fraud committed by accused
persons, an FIR dated 24.01.2018 bearing no. 0016 was got
registered with P.S Economic Offence Wing of the Delhi
Police against them. That on 03.04.2019, complainant got
in touch with Ms. Kajal Chibber, Manager Sales who had
been working with the accused company for the past many
years who instructed complainant to deposit the various
documents for allotment of plot in the Wave City Township
project and assured that the allotment of land shall be done
within few months. Being convinced by the promises and
assurances given by the representatives of the accused
persons, complainant through her son Tushar Gupta wrote
a mail dated 03.04.2019 to the accused company whereby
he uploaded the various documents as asked. Further,
complainant also sent the requisite documents as asked by
Ms. Kajal Glibber on her whatsapp number (+91-
7838381083) on 17.04.2019.
That when no communication was received from the acused
persons or their agents, complainant again sent a reminder
mail on 02.07.2019 for taking necessary steps for allotment
of the plot. However, no response was received from them.
That, subsequently complainant on numerous occasions
visited the office of the accused persons, however, the
complainant was not given any satisfactory response and
was told that the company will take decision on the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 61 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
allotment of the plot.
That in the beginning of year 2020, lockdown was imposed
in the country and whenever complainant called and
contacted the accused persons or their agents, complainant
was informed that due to lockdown no work was being
carried out.
That on 09.03.2021 again complainant wrote a reminder
mail to the accused persons and received an e-mail
confirming the receipt of email and informed that it has
been forward to the concerned department and that
someone will get back to complainant. However, no further
communication was received.
That after further pursuing with accused persons,
complainant was often harassed by the representatives and
agents of accused persons and finally was told that the plot
booking of Complainant had been cancelled by them for non
payment of money and that no allotment of plot can be made
now. It is submitted that no prior information or
communication in this regard was ever made to
complainant aggrieved by which Complainant has even
wrote to the Chief Minister Secretariat, Uttar Pradesh.
That now complainant has come to know that the accused
no. 2 and 3 while being granted by Hon’ble Saket Court in
FIR no. 0016/2018 P.S EOW had given an undertaking for
settling the grievance of various investors who have been
aggrieved by the fraud and cheating committed by accused
persons. Further vide order’ dated 19.11.2019 while
compounding the matter, the accused persons had given an
undertaking to the court to compensate the remaining
victims. However, hundreds of investors have till date
neither been allotted their plots nor any adequate
compensation has been given to them thereby committing
fraud not only with complainant, investors but also with the
Hon’ble Court as well.
That being aggrieved by the acts of the accused persons, the
complainant even sent a legal notice to the accused persons
through her advocate calling upon the accused persons to
settle the grievance of the complainant as had been
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 62 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
undertaken by the accused persons before the court
however till date no reply or any remedial steps have been
taken by them.
From the above facts it is clear that the accused persons
have deliberately in connivance with each other have
cheated thousand of investors to the tune of 1 00s of crores
of rupees and have only settled the matter with a few people
only. It is therefore most humbly requested that an FIR
against the accused persons be registered under sections u/s
420, 406, 468, 469, 471, 34, 120B IPC.
Yours Truly
S/d English Shobhana Gupta W/o Mr Chetan Prakash R/o
A-6/5, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi- 110063,
Ph. No. 9810166336
Docs enclosed:
i. Payment Reciepts
ii. Letter of Expression of interest
iii. Mail Conversations with the accused company and its
representatives.
iv. FIR dated 24.01.2018 bearing no. 0016 was got
registered with P.S Economic Offence Wing.
v. Orders passed by Saket Court in FIR dated 24.01.2018
bearing no. 0016 was got registered with P.
S Economic Offence Wing.
vi. Legal notice sent to accused persons.
To,
The Duty Officer,
PS-EOW, New Delhi
The present complaint of Ms. Shobhna Gupta w/o Sh.
Chetan Prakash R/o A-6/5, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi Age
60 years, was received at EOW and preliminary enquiry
into the allegations levelled was instituted. From the
contents of complaint & preliminary enquiry conducted,
prima facie commission of offences punishable u/s
409/420/120-B IPC is made out. I am presenting the rukka
to you. Kindly register a case and copy of FIR along with
original rukka be handed over to me for the purpose of
investigation. Date & time of offence : since 2006 onwards.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 63 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
Place of occurrence: M-4, South Extension, Part-II, New
Delhi
Date & time of presenting: 10.07.2023 at 5:30 PM
Sd/English lnsp. Kamal Kishor, Sec-VI/EOW/Delhi, No. D-
4492, PIS No. 16080333 Action taken at police station at
this time lnsp. Kamal Kishor, No. D-4492, PIS No.
16080333, SecVI/ EOW, Mandir Marg, New Delhi came at
duty officer room of police station- EOW and produced the
above mentioned complaint for the registration of case.
Case has been registered. Copy of FIR and original
endorsement is being handed over to lnsp. Kamat Kishor,
No. D-4492, PIS No. 16080333, Sec-VI/EOW, Mandir
Marg, New Delhi for further investigation. Copy of FIR will
be delivered to concerned officers through OAK.
HC/DO…”
73. The aforesaid FIR no. 55/2023 was quashed on the basis of
compromise by this Court vide order dated 14th October, 2024. Relevant
portion of the same is as under:
“..1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ―Cr.P.C.‖) (currently
under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter ―BNSS)) has been filed by the
petitioner praying for quashing of FIR bearing No. 55/2023
registered at the Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg,
New Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections
409/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
―IPC‖).
2. The petitioner No.1/company through its Authorized
Signatory Mr. Atul Kumar Gahlaot and the petitioners No.2
to 6, who are the Directors, Ex-Directors and other officials
of the petitioner No.1/company, are present before this
Court (through Video Conferencing) and have been
identified by his counsel and Investigating Officer Inspector
Mr. Kamal Kishor, Police Station Economic Offences Wing,
Mandir Marg, New Delhi. The respondent No.2/complainantSignature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 64 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
is also present in the Court (through Video Conferencing)
and has been identified by her counsel and the Investigating
Officer.
3. On the query made by this Court, respondent
no.2/complainant has categorically stated that she has
entered into compromise on her own free will and without
any pressure. It is also stated by respondent No.2 that she
has received the entire amount agreed upon as per the
settlement and the entire dispute has been amicably settled
between the parties.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner no. 1
is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956 and
had launched a project namely, ‗Wave City -NH24′ at
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The respondent No. 2 purchased
an Expression of Interest (EOI) dated 2nd February, 2006 in
an open market and got the same transferred in her name for
allotment of one of the plots in the project of the petitioner
no.1/company. The respondent No. 2 had purchased a
booking slip from M/s Shree Ank Finhold Pvt. Ltd. for a sum
of Rs.7,87,500/-. The petitioner No.1/company vide letter
dated 13th June, 2011 intimated the respondent no. 2, as well
as several other allottees, regarding the allotment of plots in
the projects, and were asked to come forward with certain
relevant documents so that allotments could be made.
However, the said plot has not been allotted to the
respondent No.2. Based on a complaint made by the
respondent no. 2, the FIR in question came to be registered.
5. During the pendency of investigation, another letter
dated 2nd January, 2024 was issued by the petitioner
no.1/company to the respondent no.2, thereby offering to
refund the entire amount paid by the respondent no. 2 i.e.,
Rs. 7,87,500/-, along with an interest @ 10% and an
additional compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Simultaneously,
the petitioner no.1/company transferred a total sum of Rs.
21,56,972/-, out of which Rs. 7,87,500 is the principal
amount, Rs. 12,69,472/- is the interest amount after
deduction of TDS and Rs. 1,00,000/- is the additional
compensation, into the bank account of the respondent no. 2.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 65 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
Subsequently, a Deed of Settlement has been entered into
between the petitioner No.1/company and the respondent
No.2, thereby, recording the terms of the settlement already
arrived at as well as a no objection of the respondent No.2
for allowing the present petition. The terms and conditions
of the said settlement are mentioned in the Deed of
Settlement which is annexed as Annexure P-3 to the petition.
6. It is prayed by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the parties that the instant FIR may be quashed on
the basis of the compromise as per the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Gian Singh vs. State of
Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303.
7. Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, learned APP for the State
submitted that a total of 966 complaints against the
petitioner no.1/company were registered with UP RERA, out
of which 887 complaints have already been settled. Thus,
there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners
seeking quashing of the FIR in question in view of the
settlement arrived at between the parties.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
9. Keeping in view of the fact that the petitioners have
already settled 887 complaints out of 996 complaints along
with the amicable settlement between the petitioners and
respondent no.2 and having received the entire amount by
the respondent no. 2, no fruitful purpose would be served by
keeping the matter pending. Hence, FIR bearing No.
55/2023 registered at the Economic Offences Wing, Mandir
Marg, New Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections
409/420/120B of the IPC and consequent proceedings
emanating therefrom are quashed.
10. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of…”
74. In view of the aforesaid observations, the principle issue which
arises is whether it would be justified to quash the FIR no. 13/2024 in
light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted
hereinabove?
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 66 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
75. The relevant paragraphs of the impugned FIR are as under:
“..To, Special Commissioner of Police Economic Offence
Wing, Delhi Police, Mandir Marg, Connaught Place, New
Delhi- 110001 Subject: – Sharing of information u/s 66(2) of
PMLA, 2002 in respect of case M/s Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech
Developers Pvt. Ltd. (UCHDPL) & others -reg. Sir, Kindly
refer to the above subject. 2. In connection with the above
cited subject, it is submitted that on the basis of complaint
filed by the applicants/investors of Hi Tech Township, The
EOW, Delhi Police registered one FIR No. 0016/2018 u/s
420/406/ 120-B IPC against M/s UCHDPL & its Directors
and Others for cheating and hatching criminal conspiracy
for siphoning -off hard-earned money of innocent investors.
As per the facts narrated in the said FIR.it was alleged that
M/s UCHDPL and its directors and other employees of the
company entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the
innocent investors/public at large in guise of allotting them
plots on the discounted rates in the prime location of
Ghaziabad, UP with false claim of world class facilities and
amenities. As per the complainants of the case, the promise
of allotment of plots within 8 months from the date of
registration was not fulfilled even after the time lapse of 11
years and the hard-earned money of many investors and plot
seekers were siphoned-off by the Directors of the company.
2.1 On the basis of above said FIR, ECIR/09/HIU/2019 was
recorded by this office for further investigation of the offence
under section 3 of the Prevention Laundering Act, 2002
punishable under section 4 of PMLA, 2002. During the
course of investigation, it has been revealed that money
received from retail investors, bulk investors and FDI (for
construction and development of said township) has been
diverted to other entities/projects for the purposes other than
development of Hi Tech City at Ghaziabad thereby
generating proceeds of crime. Further, EOW, Delhi Police
registered yet another FIR No 0049 dated 12.03.2021
against the builder M/S UCHDPL with similar allegation as
in the earlier FIRS on basis of fresh complaints received bySignature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 67 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
them. This FIR was merged in ECIR/09 /HIU /2019 already
recorded on the basis FIR No. 16/2018. 3. A search and
seizure u/ s 1 7 of PMLA 2002 at various places related to
M/s UCHDPL during 18.11.2022 to 22.11.2022 and seizure
of various records/ documents and digital devices such as
mobile phones, laptops were made. 4. Analysis of seized
documents, books of accounts and information furnished by
the accused company revealed diversion of fund to its group
entities viz M/s Chadha Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd.,
M/s Suncity Hi-tech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., M/s Wave
Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd.
Some of the instances of diversion of funds have been
tabulated Below: Diversion of funds from· M/s UCHDPL to
M/s Chadha Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. Date 08-07-
2008 Amount received from M/s UCHDPL 10,25,00,000
Utilization Rs. 4 Cr Advance given to Snow Berry Town
Planners Pvt. Ltd. For land purchase at Hyderabad and
received back on 08-12- 2008, Rs. 3.17 Cr. Advance given to
Victory Infra Build Pvt. Ltd. for land purchase at Hyderabad
and received back on 08-12-2008 Rs. 3.08 Cr. Advance
given to Saraswati Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. for land purchase at
Hyderabad and received back on 03-12-2008 02-03-2009 12
,00 ,00 ,000 Amount paid for repayment of loan to K Sons
and Associate – Rs. 11.9 Cr. 09-03-2009, 15,00,00,000
Repayment of loan to K Sons and Associate. 24-03-2009,
5,00,00,000 Rs. 5Cr. Advance given to Ramin Town
Planners Pvt. Ltd. for land purchase at Hyderabad and
received back on 12-06-2009. 27-03-2009. 10,00,00,000
Repayment of loan to K Sons and Associate. 31-03-2009
2,00,00,000 Advance given to Country Coloniser Pvt. Ltd for
Mohali Project and received back on July 2013. 02-04-2009,
1,35,00,000 Repayment ofloan to K Sons and Associate. 06-
04-2009, 30,00,000 Repayment ofloan to Wave Silver Tower
08-04-2009, 1,00,00,000 Repayment of loan to K Sons and
Associate. 13-04- 2009, 4,50,00,000 Repayment of loan to K
Sons and Associate. 20-04-2009, 4,00,00,000 Rs. 16.75
Lakhs Advance given to Country Coloniser Pvt. Ltd and
received back on July 2013. Rs. 3.83 Cr Amount given forSignature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 68 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
repayment of loan to K Sons and Associates. 25-04-2009
3,00,00,000 Rs. 4.05 Cr. Advance given to New Fort
Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. and received back on 12-06-2009 06-08-
2009, 50,00,00,000 Repayment of loan to K Sons and
Associate. 20-10-2009, 12,50,00,000 Repayment of loan to K
Sons and Associate. 08.02.2010, 35,00,00,000 Advance
given to following entities Flamingo Probuild Pvt Ltd- Rs
10.18 er (Received back on 10.10.12) Libra Builtech Pvt Ltd
– Rs 12.71 Cr (Received back on 10.10.12) Saffron Town
Planners Pvt Ltd – Rs 6.06 Cr (Received back on 10.10.12)
Aries Buildwell Pvt ltd – Rs 3.35 Cr (Received back on
11.10.12) Swans Town Planners Pvt Ltd- Rs 2.70 Cr
(Received back on 10.10.12) 24-02-2010, 10,05,00,000 Rs.
10.05 Cr Advance given to AB Movies Pvt. Ltd. and received
back on March 2010Total 175,95,00,000 Diversion of funds
from M/s UCHDPL to M/s Suncity Hi-tech Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd. Date Amount received from M/S UCHDPL
Utilization 16-09-2010 13,08,476 Amount used to pay salary
and other expenses 05-05-2011 1,00,00,000 Amount paid for
acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project
05-05-2011 50,00,000m m Amount paid for acquisition of
land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 05-05-2011
4,00,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24
Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 07-05-2011 4,00,00,000
Amount paid for acquisition of land at N H24 Ghaziabad for
Suncity Project 10-05-2011 3,00,00,000 Amount paid for
acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project
01-07-2011 2,00,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land
at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 09-07-2011
2,00,00,000 Loan received from M/s UCHDPL and returned
the same without using the fund 09-08-2011 1,30,00,000
Used to p”ay GDA for land purchase at NH 24 Ghaziabad
for Suncity Project 03-09- 2011 15,00,000 Amount paid for
acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project
26-09- 2011 35,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land
at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 27-09-2011
70,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24
Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 01-10-2011 85,00,000Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 69 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
Amount paid against interest to Oswal Greentech Limited of
Rs. 0.74 Cr. 03-10-2011 25,00,000 Amount used to pay TDS
0.10 Cr. and Electricity connection charges of Rs. 0.05 Cr.
and returned Rs. 2.05 Cr. on the same day O 1- 11-2011
20,00,000 Amount paid against interest of Rs. 0.76 Cr. to
Oswal Greentech Limited 01-12-2011, 75,00,000 Amount
paid against interest to Oswal Greentech Limited of Rs. 0.74
Cr. 16-12-2011 60,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of
land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 17-12-2011
20,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24
Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 20-12-2011 35,00,000
Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for
Suncity Project 21-�2-2011 30,00,000 Amount paid for
acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project
22-12-2011 2,00,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land
at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project and returned Rs.
2.70 Cr. on the same day_ 23-12-2011 1,25,00,000 Amount
paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity
Project 24-12-2011 l,00,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition
of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 03-01-2012
l,00,00,000 Amount paid to Oswal Greentech Limited
against interest of Rs. 0.76 Cr. and returned on the same day
05-01-2012 20,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at
NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 05- 01-2012 30 ,00,000
Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for
Suncity Project 07-01- 2012 | 20,00,000 Amount paid of Rs.
0.23 Cr. to Rudrabhishek Enterprises Pvt, Ltd. against
professional charges 09-01- 2012 40,00,000 Amount paid
for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity
Project | 12-01-2012 10,00,000 Amount refund to customer
against booking. 13-01-2012 10,00,000 Amount refund to
customer against booking. 02-02-2012 18,00,000 Amount
paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity
Project 07-02-2012 10,00,000 Amount used to pay TDS 14-
02-2012 75,00,000 Amount paid against interest to Oswal
Greentech Limited of Rs.0.76 Cr. and returned on the same
day 25-02-2012 4,00,000 Booking of plot cancelled in
Suncity and reallocate the plot in UCHDPL 27-02-2012Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 70 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
50,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24
Ghaziabad for Suncity Project | 02-03-2012 50,00,000
Amount paid against interest of Rs. 0.71 Cr. to Oswal
Greentech Limited 06-03-2012 4,10,00,000 Amount paid to
Tzar Probuild Pvt. Ltd. for Acquisition of Land. 06-03-2012
20,00,000 Amount used to pay TDS 12-03-2012 65,00,000
Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for
Suncity Project | 16-03-2012 50,00,000 Amount paid for
acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project
07-04-2012 20,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at
NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 12-04-2012 60,00,000
Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for
Suncity Project 12-04-2012 10,00,000 Amount paid for
acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project
25-04-2012 50,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at
NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 01-05-2012 20,00,000
Amount used to pay TDS and returned Rs. 0.70 Cr. on the
same day 07-05-2012 10,00,000 Amount used to pay TDS
07- 06-2012 25,00,000 Amount used to payTDS of Rs. 0.21
Cr. 12-06-2012 50,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of
land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 20-06-2012
8,00,000 Booking of plot cancelled in Suncity and reallocate
plot in UCHDPL 03-07-2012 75,00,000 Amount paid for
acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project ,
04-07-2012 25,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at
NH 124 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 03-08-2012 l
,00,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24
Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 24-11-2012 10,00,000
Amount refund to customer against booking. 12-01-2013
3,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24
Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 14-01-2013 50,00,000
Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for
acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for for Suncity
Project and returned Rs. 1.00 Cr. on the same day 06-04-
2013 40,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24
Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 08-04- 2013 5,00 ,000
Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for
Suncity Project 31-05-2014 50,00,000 Amount paid forSignature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 71 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project
31-05-2014 10,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at
NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 31-05-2014 10,00,000
Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad
Suncity Project 31-05-2014 10,00,000 Amount paid for
acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project
31-05-2014 10,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at
NH24 Ghaziabad fora Suncity Project 31-05-2014 5,00,000
Amount paid for acquisition · of land at NH24 Ghaziabad
Suncity Project 31-05-2014 5,00,000 Amount paid for
acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad Suncity Project 09-
06-2014 25,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at
NH24 Ghaziabad Suncity Project 09-06-2014 5,00,000
Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for
Suncity Project 09-06-2014 5,00,000 Amount paid for
acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project
29-07-2014 1,50,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land
at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 29-07-2014
3,00,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24
Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 29-07-2014 3,50,00,000
Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for
Suncity Project 29-07-2014 50,00,000 Amount paid for
acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project
28-08-2014 1,50,00 ,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land
at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 14-10-2014
l,00,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24
Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 25-04-2015 29,00,000
Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for
Suncity Project 06-05-2015 2,50,00,000 Amount paid for
acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project
and returned Rs. 2.79 Cr. on the same day_ 18-01-2016 1,50
,00 ,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH 24
Ghaziabad for Suncity Project and returned on the same day
29-02-2016 50,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at
NH24 Ghaziabad for· Suncity Project 21-03-2016 58,97
,00,000 Entry transferred from merge company Total
118,42,08,476 Diversion of funds from M/s UCIIDPL, to
M/S Wave Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Date Amount received fromSignature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 72 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
M/s UCIIDPL Utilization 26-02-2011 25,00,000 Amount
paid to Naida for M/s Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd. 07-
03-2011 50,00,00,000 Amount paid to Naida for M/s Wave
Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd 23-03-2011 20,50,00,000. Amount
paid to Noida for M/s Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd 06-09-
2011 1,00,00,000 Amount refund to customer for Yamuna
Expressway Project. 10-02-2012 3,00,000 Amount refund to
customer for Yamuna Expressway Project. 07-06-2012
3,20,00,000 Repayment of loan to Wave Silver Tower Pvt.
Ltd. 31-07-2012 10,00,000 Amount refund to customer
Yamuna Expressway Project. 22-09-2012 2,00,000 Amount
refund to customer for Yamuna Expressway Project. 22-09-
2012 2,00,000 Amount refund to customer Yamuna
Expressway Project. 30-04-2013 3,40,00,000 Adavance
given to Country Coloniser Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 3.4 Cr. for Mohali
Project and received back on July, 2013. 08-05-2013
6,50,00,000 Adavance given to Country Coloniser Pvt. Ltd.
Rs. 6.5 Cr. for Mohali Project and received back on July,
2013. 29-06-2013 2,00,00,000 Amount paid to repayment of
loan to M/s Manpreet Singh Chadha Total 87,02.00.000
Diversion of funds fromM/S UCHDPL to M/s Wave
Megacity Centre Pyt. Ltd. Date Amount received from M/s
UCHDP Utilization 10-08-2011 86,00,00,000 Repayment of
Loan of Wave Infratech Pvt. Ltd. 12-08-2011 7,45,00,000
Repayment of Loan of Wave Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Total 93,
45,00,000 5. From the above, it is evident that booking
amounts collected from investors/homebuyers of the project
namely Wave City at NH-24, Ghaziabad has been diverted
for the purposes other than development of the said project
which resulted in non-completion of the project in time for
which the homebuyers had given their money. 6 This
Directorate made enquiries with RERA, UP. They have
informed vide letter dated 16.03.2023 that total 966
complaints were received against UCHDPL, out of which
887 have been disposed off with directions of refund, mutual.
settlement, default, possession etc. Status of compliance of
RERA directions are yet to be ascertained. More over 79
complaints are still pending as per RERA. Copy of said letterSignature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 73 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
received from UP, RERA is enclosed. 7 .This Directorate
vide its letter dated 14.10.2021 has· written to Housing
Commissioner, UP Housing and Development Board,
Lucknow, UP regarding violations of Hi Tech Policy
(formulated by UP Government) committed by M/s
UCHDPL regarding taking money from the public without
having any land and without executing any development
agreement with GDA. Further, M/S UCHDPL got the
approval from UP government vide letter dated 05.09.2006
to purchase/hold land to develop the Hi-tech City in excess
of 12.5 acres under section 154 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. It is pertinent to
mention here that M/S UCHDPL got the permission to
develop the High Tech City as a single company rather than
a consortium. In case of consortium, certain requirements in
respect of associate companies and their registration with
Sub Registrar before signing of Mo U have not been
complied with. The land was first acquired by these 40
companies and then these companies were merged with
UCHDPL by an order dated 05.05.2014 of Hon’ble Delhi
High Court. It appears that the real intention of
incorporating 40 companies, acquisition of land though
them and then their merger with UCHDPL was to aggregate
land in UCHDPL by circumventing the Land Ceiling Laws.
8. Further, vide letter dated 04.05.23 received from 0/o
ACP, EOW, Delhi Police it has been informed that in case
FIR No. 16 / 18, total 7 3 complaints were received and the
same were submitted before Hon’ble Court along with the
chargesheet. However, no detail of settlement were available
in the office of EOW. In case FIR No. 49 /2021, total 77
complainants were received and accused company provided
deeds of settlement in respect of 57 complainants. However,
only 42complainants have been verified with regard to the
settlement. EOW has further informed that they have
received a fresh complaint from Ms Shobhna Gupta W /o Mr
Chetan Prakash against the accused company viz M/s
UCHDPL which is being enquired into. 9. The above
information is being shared u/s 66(2) of PMLA, 2002 forSignature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 74 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
necessary action against M/S UCHDPL & others at your
end. Further, it is requested that action taken, if any, on the
basis of information shared may kindly be informed. This
issues with the approval of the Competent Authority. Encl:
As above in sealed cover. Yours faithfully S/d English (Sunil
Kumar Yadav) Additional Director of Enforcement (HIU-1)
B Block, Pravartan Bhawan, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Road,
New Delhi Inspector Dharmendra for sign to register the
Case u/s 406/420/ 120B IPC and investigation the Case S / d
English ACP / Sec VII The instant Complaint has been
interested to me for registration of FIR. Accordingly,’ Do PS
– EOW is requested to register an FIR U /S 406/420/ 120B
IPC and hand over The investigation to me. S/d English
Insp. Dharmendra Section-VII/EOW No-D-4668 PIS NO
16090051 Action taken at police station at this time Insp.
Dharmendra, Belt No. – D-4668, PIS 16090051, Section-VII,
EOW, New Delhi came at duty officer room of police station-
EOW and produced the above mentioned complaint for the
registration of case. Case has been registered. Copy of FIR
and original endorsement is being handed over to Insp.
Dharmendra, Belt No. – D-4668, PIS 16090051,Section-VII,
EOW, New Delhi for further investigation. Copy of FIR will
be delivered to concerned officers through DAK. HC/DO…”
76. Upon perusal of the aforesaid extracts of the impugned FIR, it is
observed that the Additional Director of ED had shared information under
Section 66(2) of the PMLA to the Special Commissioner of Police, EOW,
with respect to the case of M/s Uppal Chaddha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt.
Ltd. (the petitioner herein) and others. For reference, the relevant portion
of Section 66(2) of the PMLA is reproduced hereunder:
“66. Disclosure of information.–2 [(1)] The Director or any
other authority specified by him by a general or special
order in this behalf may furnish or cause to be furnished to–
***
***Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 75 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
[(2) If the Director or other authority specified under sub-
section (1) is of the opinion, on the basis of information or
material in his possession, that the provisions of any other
law for the time being in force are contravened, then the
Director or such other authority shall share the information
with the concerned agency for necessary action.]..”
77. It was shared by the ED, vide letter dated 27 th May, 2023, that
based on complaints filed by the individual investors, an FIR no. 16/2018,
under Sections 420/406/120B of the IPC was registered against the
petitioner and its directors, accusing them of criminal conspiracy,
cheating and siphoning off funds from innocent investors.
78. It was stated by the ED in its letter under Section 66(2) of the
PMLA that the allegation was that the petitioner and its directors had
induced the public to invest in plots in Ghaziabad at discounted rates,
promising world class facilities, however, the allotment of plots was
delayed significantly, and the investors‟ hard-earned money was
misappropriated.
79. Thereafter, an ECIR was filed for further investigation under
Section 3 of the PMLA and the investigation revealed that money
received from the retail investors, bulk investors, and foreign direct
investment for the development of the Hi-Tech City in Ghaziabad was
diverted to other projects, generating proceeds of crime.
80. Additionally, on the basis of fresh complaints received by the
investors, on similar allegations as contained in the FIR no. 16/2018, a
second FIR no. 49/2021 was registered by the EOW, merging with the
ECIR. Investigations continued and a search operation was conducted in
November, 2022 leading to seizure of documents, record and digital
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 76 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
devices from the petitioner and related entities. It was stated by the ED
that upon analysis of the seized documents, books of accounts, and digital
devices, it was established that funds raised for the Hi-Tech City project
were diverted to various group entities such as M/s Chadha Infrastructure
Developers Pvt. Ltd., M/s Suncity Hi-Tech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., M/s
Wave Infratech Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd. the
ED stated the following details with regard to fund diversion:
Diversion to M/s Chadha Infrastructure Developers
Pvt. Ltd. – Large sums were diverted for purposes
including land acquisition and repayment of loans, with
money being moved across different companies and
projects, particularly in Hyderabad and other regions. The
total amount involved in these transactions exceeds
Rs.100 Crores (approximately), details of which is
mentioned in the FIR.
Diversion to M/s Suncity Hi-Tech Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. – Significant amounts were used for acquiring land
in Ghaziabad, including multiple payments for land at
NH24, Ghaziabad, and repayment of loans to other
entities such as M/s Oswal Greentech Limited. The total
amount involved in these transactions exceeds Rs. 100
Crores (approximately), details of which is mentioned in
the FIR.
Diversion to M/s Wave Infratech Pvt. Ltd. – Funds
totaling to Rs. 90 Crores (approximately) (detailsSignature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 77 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
mentioned in the FIR) were diverted to M/s Wave
Infratech, including repayments for loans and advances
for projects such as the Yamuna Expressway Project.
Diversion to M/s Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd. –
This company received funds totaling to over Rs. 90
Crores (approximately) (details mentioned in the FIR),
which were used for loan repayments and other corporate
expenses.
81. It was further stated by the ED that the diversion of funds for
purposes other than the development of the Hi-Tech City project in
Ghaziabad has led to a significant delay in the completion of the project.
Investors who had entrusted their hard-earned money for the development
of this project have faced severe financial losses and non-fulfillment of
the promises made to them. Further, according to information obtained
from the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), a total
of 966 complaints were filed against the petitioner herein, with 887
disposed of by issuing directions for refunds, mutual settlements, and
other outcomes and 79 complaints are still pending.
82. In addition, vide letter dated 4th May, 2023, received from EOW, it
was informed to ED that in FIR no. 16/2018, total 73 complaints were
received and the same were submitted before the Court concerned along
with chargesheet. However, no details of settlement were available in the
office of EOW. In FIR no. 49/2021, 77 complaints were received and
accused company has provided details of settlement in respect of 57
complainants and only 42 complainants have been verified with regard to
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 78 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
the settlement.
83. The status of RERA‟s directions is yet to be ascertained. Moreover,
a letter from the Directorate to the Housing Commissioner of UP dated
14th October, 2021 highlight violations by the petitioner, including
accepting public money without proper land acquisition and without
executing development agreements with Ghaziabad Development
Authority (GDA). The company received approvals for land acquisition
exceeding the limit set under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950. Further investigation revealed that the
petitioner‟s land acquisitions through multiple companies, followed by
their merger were part of a strategy to circumvent legal restrictions.
84. Therefore, considering the scale of the alleged fraud and diversion
of funds, the ED had requested that the EOW may look into the matter
and take appropriate legal action as per the provisions of PMLA, 2002 as
the scale of the misappropriation warrants urgent attention to protect the
interests of the investors and ensure that the due process is followed to
bring the responsible individuals to justice. It was also informed that
EOW has received fresh complaint from one Mrs. Shobhna Gupta which
has led to the registration of FIR no. 55/2023 against the petitioner.
85. In conclusion, the ED had stated that the aforesaid information is
being shared under Section 66 (2) of the PMLA and it was requested that
„action taken, if any, on the basis information shared may kindly be
informed‟. Following the same, the EOW took the aforesaid shared
information as complaint and on the basis of the said complaint, the
impugned FIR was registered.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 79 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
86. This Court has meticulously perused the entire material available
on record including the previous FIRs, the quashing/compounding orders,
impugned FIR, letter dated 27th May, 2023, ECIR, contents made in the
petition, reply, rejoinder and the status report as well as the reply to the
status report.
87. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the impugned FIR on
several grounds, including the non-application of mind by the ED, the
mechanical forwarding of the complaint to the EOW, the lack of any
independent opinion regarding the violation of any other law, and the
complete absence of any fresh or credible material warranting the
registration of a new FIR. It has been contended that these grounds strike
at the very root of the impugned FIR and render it unsustainable in law.
88. Here, the question that arises for consideration of this Court is
whether re-investigation of similar offence/similar grounds is permissible
just because a new FIR has been registered which contains same set of
allegations against the same person?
89. With respect to the same, while following one of its earlier
judgments passed in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala6, the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court, in Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P.7 observed that
second FIR for the same offence or occurrence giving rise to one or more
cognizable offences was not permissible. The relevant extracts of the
same are as under:
“15. It has to be examined on the merits of each case whether a
subsequently registered FIR is a second FIR about the same
incident or offence or is based upon distinct and different facts6
(2001) 6 SCC 181
7
(2013) 6 SC 384Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 80 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
and whether its scope of inquiry is entirely different or not. It will
not be appropriate for the court to lay down one straitjacket
formula uniformly applicable to all cases. This will always be a
mixed question of law and facts depending upon the merits of a
given case.
16. In Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 2 SCC 322
: 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] the Court was concerned with the
registration of a second FIR in relation to the same facts but
constituting different offences and where ambit and scope of the
investigation was entirely different. Firstly, an FIR was
registered and even the charge-sheet filed was primarily
concerned with the offence of conspiracy to cheat and
misappropriation by the two accused. At that stage, the
investigating agency was not aware of any conspiracy to send the
pillars (case property) out of the country. It was also not known
that some other accused persons were parties to the conspiracy
to obtain possession of the pillars from the court, which
subsequently surfaced in London. Earlier, it was only known to
the police that the pillars were stolen as the property within the
meaning of Section 410 IPC and were in possession of the
accused person (Narang brothers) in London.
***
20. In T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001
SCC (Cri) 1048] , the Court explained that an information given
under sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Code is commonly
known as the first information report (FIR). Though this term is
not used in the Code, it is a very important document. The Court
concluded that second FIR for the same offence or occurrence
giving rise to one or more cognizable offences was not
permissible. In this case, the Court discussed the judgments
in Ram Lal Narang [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479]
and M. Krishna [(1999) 3 SCC 247 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 397] in
some detail, and while quashing the subsequent FIR held as
under : (T.T. Antony case [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri)
1048] , SCC pp. 198-99 & 204, paras 23-25 & 35)
―23. The right of the police to investigate into a
cognizable offence is a statutory right over which the court
does not possess any supervisory jurisdiction under CrPC.
In King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [(1943-44) 71 IA
203] the Privy Council spelt out the power of the
investigation of the police, as follows : (IA p. 212)
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 81 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
‗… In India, as has been shown, there is a
statutory right on the part of the police to
investigate the circumstances of an alleged
cognizable crime without requiring any authority
from the judicial authorities, and it would, as Their
Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it
should be held possible to interfere with those
statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of the court.’
24. This plenary power of the police to investigate a
cognizable offence is, however, not unlimited. It is subject
to certain well-recognised limitations. One of them, is
pointed out by the Privy Council, thus : (Khwaja Nazir
case [(1943-44) 71 IA 203] , IA p. 213)
‗… if no cognizable offence is disclosed, and
still more, if no offence of any kind is disclosed, the
police would have no authority to undertake an
investigation….’
25. Where the police transgresses its statutory power of
investigation the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and this Court in an
appropriate case can interdict the investigation to prevent
abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice.
***
35. For the aforementioned reasons, the registration of
the second FIR under Section 154 CrPC on the basis of the
letter of the Director General of Police as Crime No. 268 of
1997 of Kuthuparamba Police Station is not valid and
consequently the investigation made pursuant thereto is of
no legal consequence, they are accordingly quashed. We
hasten to add that this does not preclude the investigating
agency from seeking leave of the Court in Crimes Nos. 353
and 354 of 1994 for making further investigations and filing
a further report or reports under Section 173(8) CrPC
before the competent Magistrate in the said cases. In this
view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the
judgment of the High Court under challenge insofar as it
relates to quashing of Crime No. 268 of 1997 of
Kuthuparamba Police Station against the ASP (R.A.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 82 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
Chandrasekhar); in all other aspects the impugned
judgment of the High Court shall stand set aside.‖
25. The first information report is a very important document,
besides that it sets the machinery of criminal law in motion. It is
a very material document on which the entire case of the
prosecution is built. Upon registration of FIR, beginning of
investigation in a case, collection of evidence during
investigation and formation of the final opinion is the sequence
which results in filing of a report under Section 173 of the Code.
The possibility that more than one piece of information is given to
the police officer-in-charge of a police station, in respect of the
same incident involving one or more than one cognizable
offences, cannot be ruled out. Other materials and information
given to or received otherwise by the investigating officer would
be statements covered under Section 162 of the Code. The court
in order to examine the impact of one or more FIRs has to
rationalise the facts and circumstances of each case and then
apply the test of ―sameness‖ to find out whether both FIRs relate
to the same incident and to the same occurrence, are in regard to
incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction or
relate completely to two distinct occurrences. If the answer falls
in the first category, the second FIR may be liable to be quashed.
However, in case the contrary is proved, whether the version of
the second FIR is different and they are in respect of two different
incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible, this is the view
expressed by this Court in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat [(2010)
12 SCC 254 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 336] . This judgment clearly
spells out the distinction between two FIRs relating to the same
incident and two FIRs relating to different incidents or
occurrences of the same incident, etc…”
90. Perusal of the aforesaid shows that as per the settled position of
law, in order to ascertain the impact of one or more FIRs, the peculiar
nature of facts and circumstances are to be determined at the outset.
Pursuant to the same, the Court has to apply the test of „sameness‟ to find
out as to whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident and to the
same occurrence and are in regard to the incidents which form part of the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 83 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
same transaction. In the event, the answer to the same is in affirmative,
the other FIR is liable to be quashed.
91. With regard to the matter at hand, the information shared by the
ED under Section 66(2) of the PMLA led to the registration of the
impugned FIR. The said information can be categorized into various
allegations made against the petitioner with respect to the i) commission
of cognizable offences such as diversion and siphoning of funds, and
duping investors, ii) illegally acquiring land and violating land ceiling
laws, iii) issue of merger of companies, and iv) duping investors for
which proceedings are pending before the RERA.
92. At this juncture, after perusing the aforesaid records including the
FIR nos. 16/2018, 49/2021 and 55/2023 along with the orders dated 19 th
November, 2019, 22nd December, 2022 and 14th October, 2024 vide
which the respected FIRs have been compounded/quashed; as well as the
allegations made in the FIR against the petitioner, this Court is of the
view that the impugned FIR warrants interference of this Court and the
same is liable to be quashed in light of the grounds/discussions made in
the following paragraphs.
93. At the outset, it is noted that in the counter affidavit filed by the
ED, it has contended and reiterated the validity of Section 66(2) of the
PMLA, however, it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has no
where challenged the validity of the said provision rather it has contended
that the ED has misused the provisions of law by sharing the information
under the said provision as the same was done with the intent to keep the
investigation against the petitioner alive by creating some predicate
offence.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 84 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
94. It is pertinent to mention that there is no doubt regarding the
validity of Section 66(2) of the PMLA and the ED is well within its rights
and statutory duties to share the information under the aforesaid provision
in terms of paragraph nos. 282 and 290 of the judgment rendered in Vijay
Mdanal Chaudhary (Supra) if it is of the opinion that cognizable offence
has been committed. Further, in terms of the said judgment, the
concerned jurisdictional police station is obligated to accept the
information and proceed with the registration of FIR if an offence is made
out. However, when the said information was received by the EOW, the
EOW was required to apply its independent mind, verify and assess the
contents of the letter dated 27th May, 2023 in order to proceed with the
registration of the FIR as it would have found that the same set of
allegations, which are purported to be cognizable offences, were made in
the earlier FIRs and the said FIRs were compromised/settled.
95. This Court is inclined to concur with the petitioner‟s contentions. A
perusal of Section 66(2) of the PMLA reveals that the ED, while sharing
the information, has to form an opinion on the basis of the information in
its possession. Cursory reading of the said provision makes the same
evidently clear. However, in the instant case, the ED has failed to form
any such clear opinion and the same is apparent from the face of the
record. The EOW has merely repeated allegations qua the commissions
of cognizable offences that are already covered in the previous FIRs
which were lodged against the petitioner, wherein, the same cognizable
offences have been compromised/settled.
96. Accordingly, it is held that the respondent no. 2 rightly shared the
information to the respondent no. 1, however, the same raises certain
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 85 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
questions in the mind of this Court as the ED‟s mechanical forwarding of
the complaint to the EOW, without forming any independent opinion
regarding the commission of cognizable offence is not in terms of the
intent of the statutory mandate. Furthermore, the EOW as well has acted
and registered the FIR in a mechanical manner and without application of
mind.
97. Moving further to the aspect of the allegation of commission of the
cognizable offences for which the information was shared under Section
66(2) of the PMLA, this Court is of the view that all investors‟ claims
cannot be amalgamated and clubbed in a single FIR. Merely citing that a
large number of people have been victim in an alleged offence cannot be
the procedure to investigate any offence pertaining to dispute in real
estate sector. The same is based on the premise that the individual
investors and the concerned real estate project builder are the private
parties and all such individual investors might want to address their
grievance separately and under different circumstances. Some of the
individual investors might seek settlement and some might seek proper
investigation.
98. Upon perusal of the entire material available on record, it is made
out by this Court that the EOW‟s allegation of commission of cognizable
offence, i.e., diversion of funds by the petitioner to its group entities is
not a new allegation as claimed, but has already been raised in the
previous FIRs (16/2018, 49/2021 & 55/2023) which have either been
compounded or quashed by the Court concerned.
99. At this stage, when the entire premise of the impugned FIR is
similar to the ones made in the previously compromised/ settled/
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 86 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
compounded/ quashed FIRs, the impugned FIR cannot survive as the
same might lead to re-investigation or double jeopardy which is
impermissible in the eyes of law.
100. Allegations made in the FIR regarding the cheating of government
authorities and misappropriation of investors‟ money are also devoid of
any merit and do not constitute any cognizable offence as no proof with
respect to the same has been filed or shown to substantiate the said
allegations to any extent.
101. The EOW has recorded the baseless allegations (cognizable
offence) in the impugned FIR without even conducting a basic
examination of the previous FIRs filed against the petitioner and the said
non-application of mind is apparent from the face of the record. A
cursory perusal of the contents of the FIR nos. 16/2018, 49/2021 &
55/2023 clearly reveals that the specific allegations of diversion of funds
were made by the complainants therein and the same were duly
investigated by the concerned police station which ultimately led to their
quashing/compounding. The record clearly reveals that the majority of
the disputes of the individual investors stand settled/compromised.
Therefore, the EOW‟s action of registering the impugned FIR, without
any prima facie evidence and verification is untenable in the eyes of law
as the FIR does not disclose the commission of any new cognizable
offence and the same lacks application of mind.
102. The EOW has failed to justify the registration of the FIR with
regard to the pendency of cases before the RERA against the petitioner
company. It is a settled position of law that the pendency of civil
proceedings cannot be used as a ground to initiate criminal action or
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 87 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
register a new FIR. It is an admitted fact that the proceedings pending
before the RERA are purely civil in nature, arising out of the contractual
relationship between the petitioner company and its individual investors/
buyers/complainants therein, therefore, if the RERA finds any irregularity
or criminality in the conduct of the petitioner or its group entities, the
EOW shall always be at liberty to initiate proceedings.
103. The proceedings before the RERA serve the purpose to address the
grievances of the complainants therein in terms of their money and
project in which they have invested whereas the police, being an
investigating agency will be required to look in the criminality of the
offence, if any.
104. The EOW‟s attempt to conflate civil and criminal proceedings is
not only legally untenable but also hints towards a mala fide intention to
harass and prejudice the petitioner company. Therefore, the pendency of
the disputes before the RERA may not form the basis of registration of
the FIR that too in the event when out of the total 966 complaints made
against the petitioner before the RERA, 887 have been disposed of with
the directions of refund, mutual settlement, default, possession etc, and
the majority of investors have already settled or entered into compromise.
105. Further, in the FIR, it has been stated that the petitioner company
violated various land ceiling laws by merging forty various companies
into a single one. With regard to the same, it is observed by this Court
that vide order dated 5th May, 2014, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Co. Pet. No. 47/2014, the Court concerned had approved the
merger of forty companies with the petitioner company. In paragraph nos.
11 to 17 of the said order, it can be noted that a notice was duly issued to
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 88 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
the Regional Director, Northern Region, who had filed an affidavit
categorically stating that post-merger, the land area with the petitioner
company would fall within the ceiling limits as approved by the
Ghaziabad Development Authority. The said order has not been
challenged as per the record available before this Court and thus, the said
dispute stands decided and adjudicated which, at this stage, may not be
the subject matter of any criminal offence, unless substantiated with some
material proof. Therefore, no such offence is made out prima facie.
106. Furthermore, the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1960, in Section 36, deals with the offences by the
companies and cooperative society, therefore, if any offence is made out,
the competent authority to take actions against the violations of the said
act would be the authority prescribed under the said Act and EOW has no
role to play thereto. A bare perusal of the impugned FIR would also
reveal that the same is based on the same set of stale allegations and the
said new allegations, as claimed by the respondents, regarding the land
acquisition and merger of companies are nothing but a blatant attempt to
bring the petitioner within the ambit of criminal law. Moreover, the said
Act does not find any mention in the list of scheduled offences under the
PMLA, therefore, any action taken for the supposed violation of the said
Act would be of no assistance in saving EOW‟s consequential
proceedings.
107. This Court is of the considered view that the sole motive behind
the registration of the impugned FIR was to keep the investigation against
the petitioner company alive despite the absence of any fresh or credible
information. The EOW‟s erroneous registration of the FIR despite any
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 89 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
substantial evidence clearly shows the non-application of mind as
evidently, the contents of the FIR are mere reiteration of the letter dated
27th May, 2023 (issued under Section 66(2) of the PMLA) and the same is
a blatant abuse of the legal process.
108. It is observed by this Court that the impugned FIR was registered
with the sole purpose of maintaining the ED‟s investigative jurisdiction
and the same is apparent from the list of dates and events, the chronology
of the dispute pertaining to the petitioner company and the bare perusal of
the earlier FIRs as well as the impugned FIR.
109. The respondents have contended that the allegations made in the
impugned FIR are new. However, this Court does not agree with the
respondents. The impugned FIR stems from the letter dated 27th May,
2023 which encapsulate the alleged commission of cognizable offences
against the petitioner with respect to diversion of funds by the petitioner,
pending cases before the RERA, violation of land ceiling laws,
allegations made by the complainant in FIR nos. 16/2018 and 49/2021
and allegations made by one Mrs. Shobhna Gupta in FIR no. 55/2023.
110. The allegations contained in the previous FIRs which have also
formed the basis of the registration of the instant FIR were investigated
by the concerned police station until the time the same were
quashed/compounded. Therefore, the EOW‟s assertions that the
allegations of diversion of funds constitute new information not covered
in the previous FIRs are baseless and misconceived. Further, it is
pertinent to note that even the FIR no. 55/2023, registered on the basis of
the complaint made by Mrs. Shobhna Gupta has also been quashed vide
order dated 14th October, 2024, passed by this Court in CRL. MC.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 90 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
420/2024. Therefore, the allegations in the impugned FIR qua the
complaint of Mrs. Shobhna Gupta are of no relevance and hence, no
offence is made out as such.
111. It is a well-settled position of law that registration of a new FIR on
the basis of the same allegations is impermissible. The Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in a catena of judgments has categorically held that subjecting an
accused to fresh investigation on the basis of the same allegations is an
abuse of the legal process and violates the fundamental rights guaranteed
under the Constitution of India. By attempting to resurrect the same old
allegations in the garb of a new FIR, the respondents are not only acting
in contravention of the settled legal position but also subjecting the
petitioner company to undue harassment and prejudice.
112. This Court is of the considered view that the respondents have
acted in a manner that is contrary to all the canons of legal jurisprudence
and in complete disregard of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the
Constitution of India.
113. In view of the preceding paragraphs, it is observed that in the
instant FIR, it has been alleged that the petitioner and its group entities
have duped the investors/buyers. Further, the ED has particularly shared
with the EOW that vide letter dated 16th March, 2023, the RERA
informed that total of 966 complaints were received against the petitioner,
out of which 887 have been disposed of with the directions of refund,
mutual settlement, default, possession etc. and over 79 complaints are
still pending for adjudication by the RERA, and the same has not been
taken into consideration while lodging the impugned FIR. Moreover, the
earlier FIRs which included similar allegations of commission of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 91 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
cognizable offence, as mentioned in the instant FIR, already stand
quashed/compounded/compromised/settled, thus, no new cognizable
offence is made out in the impugned FIR.
114. Therefore, despite the admitted position of fact that the earlier FIRs
already stand quashed/compounded vide order dated 19th November,
2019, 22nd December, 2022 and 14th October, 2024 as well as the fact that
the dispute of the majority of the investors is compromised/settled; the act
of the respondent no. 1 EOW by registering the FIR again on the same set
of stale allegations creates serious doubts.
115. Further, the respondent no. 1 EOW should not have registered the
FIR on the basis of assumptions and presumptions as in the instant case
the same would lead to re-investigation against the petitioner on the basis
of assertions/claims/allegations which have been already
compromised/settled. This, along with the fact that there is a delay on the
part of the EOW in registering the FIR with respect to the information
shared by the ED under Section 66(2) of the PMLA reeks of mala fide on
the part of the EOW as the letter was issued by the ED on 27th May, 2023
and the impugned FIR was registered on 6th March, 2024. Nowhere has
the respondent no. 1 EOW justified the gross delay in registration of the
FIR. Neither has the EOW contended that it was collecting evidence or
doing investigation that led to the delay in registration of the FIR, nor has
the EOW brought on record any incriminating evidence against the
petitioner.
116. Here, it is also pertinent to mention Article 20 (2) of the
Constitution of India which prohibits a person from being prosecuted and
punished for the same offence more than once. The said principle
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 92 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
enshrined under Article 20 prevents individuals from being subjected to
multiple trials or punishments for the same offence. The said principle
also finds mention in Section 337 BNSS (earlier Section 301 of the
CrPC).
117. There is no doubt that unduly long delay has the effect of bringing
about blatant violation of the rule of law and adverse impact on the
common man‟s access to justice. A person‟s access to justice is a
guaranteed fundamental right under the Constitution and particularly
Articles 20 and 21 with regard to the instant case. Therefore, keeping a
matter pending for investigation and further trial, that too when the
allegations leveled are completely baseless as:
I. the same set of allegations containing commission of
cognizable offences, when made by the private individual
investors earlier, have been quashed/compounded;
II. the other set of allegations pertain to civil disputes, for
which, proceedings are pending before the RERA;
III. out of the total 966 complaints against the petitioner
made before the RERA, 887 have been disposed of with
the directions of refund, mutual settlement, default,
possession etc.;
IV. the EOW has proceeded to register the FIR on the basis
of assumptions and presumptions, without applying its
mind and conducting an independent assessment;
V. the registration of the FIR by the EOW seems to be a
tactic to keep the investigation against the petitioner
alive; andSignature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 93 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
VI. the EOW shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings against
the petitioner if any incriminating evidence is found
during the proceedings pending before the RERA or any
other authority.
118. The impugned FIR is a classic example of abuse of process of law
wherein the prosecution, in a blatant attempt, to include the petitioner in
commission of an offence has grossly avoided the application of mind by
not verifying the contents which would have shown that the said contents
are mere reiteration of the earlier FIRs; and the same is evident from the
bare perusal of the contents of the FIR and the letter dated 27th May, 2023
(sent by the ED). A perusal of the same shows that the respondent no. 1
has merely copied the contents of the said letter and has registered the
FIR.
119. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the compelling
circumstances such as the quashing of earlier FIRs which contained same
set of allegations qua commission of cognizable offences against the
petitioner which were ultimately compromised/settled, this Court is of the
considered view that while applying the test of „sameness‟, as discussed
hereinabove, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed as the respondents
cannot be allowed to re-investigate the already compromised/settled
disputes by way of registering a fresh FIR on the same set of allegations.
120. Thus, this Court finds merit in the instant petition and is of the
view that the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
CONCLUSION
121. This Court is of the view that the impugned FIR in the instant case
is an abuse of the process of law. It is found that non-interference in the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 94 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07
present matter would result into miscarriage of justice and thus, in
exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier
Section 482 of the CrPC) read with Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned FIR.
122. In view of the above discussion on all the facts and circumstances
as well as law, the of FIR no. 13/2024, dated 6th March, 2024, registered
at Police Station – Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi for offences
punishable under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
and all the consequential proceedings emerging from the said FIR stands
quashed.
123. However, it is made clear that in the event the other authorities
such as RERA, where proceedings are pending against the petitioner and
its group entities, arrives at the conclusion that any irregularities or
offence punishable under the penal law or any other law in existence has
been committed by the petitioner or any of its group entities/individuals,
the respondent no. 1 EOW is at liberty to initiate afresh proceedings
against the petitioner or any of its group entities/individuals in accordance
with the law at the instance of the complaint made by any individual
investor or the ED.
124. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and stands disposed of.
125. Pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.
126. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
(CHANDRA DHARI SINGH)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 9, 2024
NA/ryp/av
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 3369/2024 Page 95 of 95
Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN
KUMAR BABBAR
Signing Date:11.12.2024
18:25:07