TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1661
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f marketing in Real Estate Projects and Jeevesh Sabharwal jointly agreed to work on a Project named IRIDIA being built in Noida and developed by M/s Horizon Buildcon Private Limited ("HBPL"). For this purpose, a SPV called Horizon Concept Private Limited was floated wherein 25 percent of the shares were held by Complainant/Suninder Sandha and the remaining shares were held by HBPL. 3. In 2013, again Complainant/Suninder Sandha and the Jeevesh Sabharwal agreed to work on another Project called Orizzonte. For this purpose, M/S. Concept Horizon Infra Pvt. Ltd (CHIPL) (petitioner Company) was incorporated on 02.07.2013, with Mr. Jeevesh Sabharwal and Respondent no. 2 as Directors having 50-50% shareholding. Complainant/Suninder Sandha was to oversee the day-to-day affairs of CHIPL. 4. Complainant persuaded the Petitioner to purchase FSI on plot of land bearing no-22, at Knowledge Park-Ill, Greater NOIDA with rights to develop / construct FSI of 5.40 lakhs sq.ft. On 05.10.2013, an Agreement was entered into between the Petitioner and M/s. Shivam Estates for the development and sale of the FSI jointly, a project marketed under the name of 'Orrizonte'. The CRM data of the Petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ped after issuing a Legal Notice dated 20.07.2016. 11. The Complainant deposited Cheque No. 016375 and Cheque bearing no. 016376 dated 15.07.2016 for a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/-, on two different dates which got dishonoured due to Stop Payment. The Complainant after sending two separate Legal Notice dated 08.08.2016 and 19.09.2016 respectively, filed two CC no. 47692/2016 and CC No.48771/2016, under S.138 NI Act in Delhi. 12. The actions of the Respondent no. 2 of filing Complaint Case under S.138 NI Act in Delhi, resulted in registration of FIR No. 1233/2016 dated 10.08.2016 at PS Noida, against the Complainant. Charge-sheet was filed inter-alia confirming the above-mentioned acts of cheating, forgery etc. of an amount of Rs. 18 Crore (approx.), along with a FSL Report confirming that the alleged signatures of the above named Mr. Jeevesh Sabharwal had been forged. Several of the accounts maintained by the Respondent no. 2 were frozen/attached by the Investigating Agency. This action of freezing the bank accounts has been upheld by various Courts all the way up till the Apex Court. 13. Filing of second Complaint case under S.138 NI Act by the Respondent no. 2 in Delhi, led t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Infra Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.' pending investigation and adjudication of FIR No.1233 of 2016, PS Noida, Sector-20 dated 10.08.2016 and FIR No. 665/2016, PS Vikas Puri, Delhi dated 07.12.2016 now pending investigations with EOW, New Delhi and the Arbitration Proceedings currently pending between the parties before Ld. Sole Arbitrator Sh. Badar Durrez Ahmed; and/or b. Pass appropriate direction to the Respondent no.1 to do speedy investigations in a time-bound manner in FIR No.665/2016 dated 07.12.2016 at PS Vikaspuri u/s 406/420/467/468/471/120B and 34 IPC now pending investigations with EOW, New Delhi; and/or..." 21. The Respondent No. 2 has filed a short Counter-Affidavit wherein it is submitted that the Petitioner has come with unclean hands and is playing a fraud on the Court. The present case is baseless and not maintainable on the ground that the Petitioner had earlier filed a CRL.M.C. 5398/2018 seeking quashing of CC No. 47692/2016 & Order dated 05.09.2018, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide Order dated 23.10.2018. 22. It is submitted that the Petitioner approached this court in haste and chose to not take this defence in the trial of Complaint Cases. 23. It is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CC No. 48771/2016 under Section 138 NI Act pending trial in FIR No. 665/2016 at P.S. Vikaspuri and FIR No.1233/2016 at PS Noida. 33. The only issue for determination is "whether proceedings under Section 138 NI Act against the accused can be stayed pending adjudication of criminal proceedings initiated by the accused against the Complainant?" 34. The proceedings under Section 138 NI Act and Sections 406/420/467/468/471/120B and 34 IPC operate in two different realms. The offence under 138 NI Act is quasi-criminal in nature & its intent is to nudge the accused to make the requisite payment. On the other hand, offences under IPC seek to punish an accused who committed an offence with necessary mens rea. 35. The objective of a criminal trial is to ascertain the truth and do justice. As recently noted by the Apex Court in Om Prakash vs. Union of India & Anr. 2025 INSC 43 that "Justice is nothing but a manifestation of the truth". 36. The Petitioner, while seeking stay of the trial in Cheque dishonour cases, is attempting to assert the truthfulness of his own Complaints over those of Respondent No. 2. 37. This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be having extraordinary p....