SEEMA GOELversusState of UP AND ANOTHER

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
             Matters Under Article 227 No. - 1836 of 2024

Seema Goel                                              …..Petitioners(s)

                                 Versus

State of U.P. & Anr.                                  …..Respondents(s)


Counsel for Petitioners(s)        : Shivam Yadav, Udai Bhatia
Counsel for Respondent(s)         : G.A., Rahul Chaudhary


Court No. - 88

                   HON’BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.


1. Heard Shri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri
Shivam Yadav alongwith Shri Udai Bhatia, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri Rahul Chaudhary alongwith Shri Punit Pandey, learned
counsel for respondent no. 2, and Shri H.P. Singh, learned A.G.A.-I,
appearing for the State-respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated
10.01.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, in
Criminal Revision No.184 of 2023, whereby the Criminal Revision has
been dismissed and the order dated 06.10.2022, passed by the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Ghaziabad, was affirmed, wherein the
discharge application filed by the accused was dismissed.

3. Brief facts of this case are that the respondent/complainant G.S.
Raghav lodged an FIR against 10 accused persons, namely Rohit Batra,
Amit Yadav, Avdesh Kumar Goyal, Smt. Seema Goyal, Vikash Gupta,
Smt. Renu. Rajneesh Mittal, Smt. Mamta Mittal, Atul Gupta and Renu
Gupta under sections 420, 406, 415, 418, 467, 468, 471, 120B and
                                    2
                                           Matters Under Article 227 No. - 1836 of 2024


Section 34 IPC as case crime No. 1889/2018 at police station Kavi
Nagar, Ghaziabad. He alleged that in the month of February/March
2014, the co-accused Rohit Batra and Amit Yadav, posing as the Vice
President and sales executive of Earth Infrastructure Ltd., contacted him
by telephone. Relying on them, the complainant called them to meet at
his address. The accused told him that the aforesaid company will build
a project in Gautam Budh Nagar and the said company is registered
under the Companies Act 1956. This company is engaged in the
construction of housing and commercial complexes in Noida and Greater
Noida.

3.1. They further convinced the complainant to invest in the project,
which will result in handsome returns. Thereafter, both of them arranged
a meeting between the complainant and the other named accused
persons, presenting them as promoters/directors/shareholders. These
accused persons, apart from Rohit Batra and Amit Yadav, assured the
complainant that their company is building many projects and if the
complainant invests in their project, it will fetch him handsome returns.
On believing the assurances given by them, the complainant invested Rs.
1,80,00,000/-, which he paid by cash and cheques, in their project,
namely T-Z 06, Tech Zone, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, and
also booked a space of 2000 Square feet. An MOU between the
complainant and the accused company was also signed, and it was
assured by the accused persons that the complainant will receive assured
profit of 14% on the invested amount of Rs. 72,21,059/-. The company
also delivered 41 cheques to the complainant in lieu of the said
assurance. Out of the said 41 cheques, only 28 were honoured by the
banks, and he received Rs. 50,90,436/-; however, the remaining 13
cheques, amounting to Rs. 24,30,623, were dishonoured. The
complainant reminded the accused persons that the company, which had
deducted an amount of Rs. 8,35,691/- as T.D.S., had not deposited it. It
was assured that the company will deposit the TDS very soon. Sensing
the accused's dubious conduct, the complainant became suspicious and
felt he was being duped by the accused. So, without any further delay,
                                    3
                                            Matters Under Article 227 No. - 1836 of 2024


the complainant contacted Rohit Batra and Amit Yadav, who had initially
arranged his meeting with the accused persons. In this meeting, the
accused persons assured the complainant that the cheque amount would
be recovered by redepositing the cheques in the bank once again.
Relying on their assurance, the complainant again submitted the cheques
to its bankers, but the thirteen cheques were again dishonoured. Even the
accused company had not deposited the TDS amount of Rs. 8,35,691 in
the income tax department.

3.2. Again, the complainant contacted the accused persons and made a
visit to the project site, where he found that no construction existed on
land that was supposed to be owned by the company. Thereafter, the
complainant approached the police authorities to register an FIR against
the promoters/directors/shareholders of the company for failing to fulfil
the promises made in the MOU dated 01.05.2014 and for duping the
complainant of an amount of Rs. 2,04,30,623/-. During the investigation,
the investigating officer found no evidence against the petitioner and
accordingly submitted a final report in her favour, recording that the
petitioner was neither the director nor the signatory of Earth
Infrastructure Limited or Earth Iconic Infrastructure Limited (EIIL) for
any purpose.

3.3. But on 26.02.2019, on the complaint of the complainant, the I.O.
was changed and the incumbent I.O. after recording the supplementary
statement of the witnesses and conducting investigation with respect to
the companies owned by the petitioner, arrayed her as an accused in the
supplementary charge-sheet by recording the finding that huge amount
collected by the accused company, i.e. Earth Infrastructure Limited and
Earth Iconic Infrastructure Limited (EIIL) has been siphoned of through
the approx 38 companies owned by the petitioner.

4. Shri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the entire controversy arises out of an investment
transaction governed by an MOU dated 1.5.2014 entered into between
Earth Iconic Infrastructure Private Limited and M/s G.S. Raghav (HUF)
through its Karta, arrayed herein as respondent no.2. As per the aforesaid
                                     4
                                             Matters Under Article 227 No. - 1836 of 2024


MOU, the complainant’s company made an investment of Rs.54 lakhs
with assured monthly return.

4.1. Shri Tiwari further argued that Rs.50.90 lakhs, out of 54 lakhs, have
been returned to the complainant's company. Certain cheques issued by
the company were dishonoured, and the complainant/respondent has
been availing the remedies available under the N.I. Act, therefore, no
criminal case is made out against the petitioner.

4.2. He next submitted that even if the complainant’s case is admitted in
its entirety, the dispute will emerge as a civil dispute arising out of
alleged non-payment of the part returns.

4.3. No role has been assigned to the petitioner in the entire charge-
sheet. She is arrayed as an accused, being the legally wedded wife of the
alleged main accused. A bare reading of the FIR and charge-sheet(s)
reveals a clear and mechanical pattern of naming the wives of directors
of the accused companies, without attributing to any specific role, overt
act, or inducement of higher returns. He next submitted that the
petitioner was never a director or signatory to any of the bank accounts
of the Earth Iconic Infrastructure Private Limited, and had no concern
with the day-to-day business affairs of the company.

4.4. The learned trial Court has erroneously conducted a roving inquiry
at the stage of discharge; such an approach defeats the very object of
Section 227 Cr.P.C. and amounts to holding a mini-trial at the stage of
discharge.

4.5. The ingredients of sections 406, 420 and 409 IPC have not been
made out against the petitioner on plain reading of FIR, supplementary
charge-sheet and the material collected during investigation.

4.6. Learned Senior Counsel further stated that it is an admitted position
that the company entered the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
on 20.8.2018, prior to registration of FIR, and an Interim Resolution
Professional has already been appointed to manage the affairs of the
company; therefore, carrying with the criminal proceedings qua
petitioner, is unsustainable.
                                     5
                                             Matters Under Article 227 No. - 1836 of 2024


4.7. The petitioner has been made an accused in a supplementary charge-
sheet erroneously; the company has not been made an accused, and the
trial court has placed reliance erroneously upon the inadmissible material
while rejecting the discharge application.

5. Per contra, Shri Rahul Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent,
submitted that:

5.1. The petitioner-accused is one of the Director in the companies
through which the cheated amount has been siphoned off. Rs.
2,04,30,623/- was invested by the complainant company on the
assurance of the accused company and its Director for a monthly return
on the invested money, and the petitioner was made an accused in the
supplementary charge-sheet after her role surfaced during further
investigation.

5.2. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on the
charge-sheet(s) and the summoning order(s) was assailed before this
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Since the co-accused’s application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was rejected on merits with the liberty to file a
discharge application through counsel, the petitioner has also sought
withdrawal on a similar line and thereby the applicant’s application was
dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to move a discharge application
before the trial court.

5.3. The applicant filed the discharge application before the learned trial
court, which was rejected vide order dated 6.10.2022. Aggrieved
thereby, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision before the Sessions
Court, Ghaziabad, which was rejected vide the detailed and reasoned
impugned order dated 10.1.2024.

5.4. Shri Rahul Chaudhary further submitted that despite having no
interim protection, the applicant did not appear before the trial Court for
almost five years, after filing of supplementary charge-sheet.

5.5. On merits, the accused had offered for a sale of 2000 square feet of
commercial space at the ground floor in the proposed mall through an
MOU dated 1.5.2024. The accused company had no land at the time the
                                    6
                                            Matters Under Article 227 No. - 1836 of 2024


MOU was executed, and glossy pictures were shown to the buyers to
attract investment on false and baseless projections, with the sole
intention of cheating the investors. There was no sanction plan for the
construction of a commercial complex, nor were the necessary approvals
taken by the company.

5.6. The 161 Cr.P.C. statement reveals that the applicant accused had met
the complainant in person and induced him to invest in her company,
thereby the complainant's company suffered huge financial loss.

5.7. He next submitted that there is no bar under Section 14 of the IBC,
2016, to prosecute the offending company and its directors/promoters for
criminal offences, in which insolvency proceedings have been initiated
under IBC, 2016.

5.8. The money collected by the Earth Infrastructure Private Limited and
Earth Iconic Infrastructure Private Limited, siphoned through the 38
companies owned by the petitioner, and the petitioner is a director in all
those companies. The petitioner is a Promoter and shareholder of the
accused companies, Earth Infrastructure Private Limited and Earth
Iconic Infrastructure Private Limited. And placed reliance upon Parcha
No. 16 of the case diary annexed as Annexure-WS-1 of the written
submission, where the findings have been recorded by the Investigating
Officer about the siphoning of amounts through various companies
owned by the petitioner.

6. After hearing learned counsel Shri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Shri Shivam Yadav alongwith Shri Udai Bhatia,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rahul Chaudhary alongwith Shri
Punit Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, and on perusal of the
impugned order, and supplementary charge-sheet, this Court is of the
view that a ‘mini trial’ cannot be conducted at the stage of deciding the
discharge application filed by the accused. At this stage, the Court shall
determine whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused.
For this purpose, it is required to peruse the material collected by the
Investigating Officer; however, the admissibility and reliability of such
material are not to be conclusively adjudicated at this stage, as they are
                                     7
                                             Matters Under Article 227 No. - 1836 of 2024


matters to be tested during trial, where the prosecution will have the
opportunity to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable
doubt, and accused will be afforded an opportunity to prove his/ her
innocence.

7. So far as the role of the petitioner is concerned, it has been dealt with
by the learned Revisional Court in para 6 and 7 of the impugned order,
wherein the learned Revisional Court has recorded a finding that the co-
accused Rohit and Amit Yadav were instrumental in introducing the
complainant to the accused persons. The petitioner, Seema Goyal, was
also among the people working for the company with whom the
complainant had met, and she had also assured a guaranteed return on
the investment. It is further recorded that the role of the petitioner has
been unfolded by the Investigating Officer in parcha nos. 16, 21 and 30
of the supplementary charge-sheet, forming part of the supplementary
charge-sheet. The Earth Iconic Infrastructure Private Limited, owned by
the other co-accused, has systematically transferred Rs. 9,84,83,987/- to
the account of the petitioner, Seema Goyal. The investigation further
reveals that approximately Rs. 176 crores collected from the buyers have
been illegally transferred to various companies owned by the petitioners,
Seema Goyal, Mamta Mittal, Renu Gupta, and Reshu Gupta. In this way
a huge amount has been siphoned off by the petitioner for her personal
gain in a pre-planned conspiracy to cheat almost 5000 investors.

8. The findings recorded by the learned Revisional Court, upon due
consideration of the material collected during investigation and the
parameters governing adjudication at the stage of discharge, do not
suffer from any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error
warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned
Revisional Court has rightly confined itself to examining whether a
prima facie case is made out on the basis of the charge-sheet and
accompanying material, and has not transgressed into the appreciation of
evidence, which is the exclusive domain of the trial.
                                                                8
                                                                          Matters Under Article 227 No. - 1836 of 2024


                            9. Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. The learned trial Court is
                            directed to expedite the trial proceedings and to ensure that no
                            unnecessary or repetitive adjournments are granted to the accused(s). In
                            the event that repetitive personal exemption applications by the
                            accused(s) are filed without disclosing cogent and sufficient reasons, the
                            same shall be considered and disposed of by passing a reasoned order, so
                            as to subserve the mandate of a fair and speedy trial and to enforce the
                            terms on which bail was granted. Needless to say, the offence was
                            alleged to have been committed in 2014, and the first charge-sheet was
                            filed on 22.2.2017, followed by the supplementary charge-sheet on
                            22.7.2017. And the trial has not begun yet.

                            10. The findings recorded by this court shall not affect the merits of the
                            case or subsequent proceedings. The same has been recorded to decide
                            the present case.
                            February 26, 2026
                            A.Tripathi

                                                                                       (Vinod Diwakar,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
AKHILESH TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad