SATINDER SINGH BHASIN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25724 of 2022

Satinder Singh Bhasin And Another
                                                       .....Applicant(s)
                               Versus
State Of U.P. And Another
                                                          .....Opposite
                                                                Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)     : Aditya Yadav, Pankaj Kumar Shukla,
                               Satya Prakash Tiwari, Shivam
                               Yadav, Swatantra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Akash Sharma, Ashish Dwivedi, G.A.

Court No. - 82
              HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel for the
applicants assisted by Sri Shivam Yadav, Sri Praney Sharma, Sri
Aditya Yadav and Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel, Sri
Pankaj Kumar Shukla learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the materials available on
record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 1559 of
2019 (State v. Satinder Singh Bhasin) arising out of Case Crime No.
353 of 2015, under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C., Police Station
Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate - II, Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. Brief fact of the present is that an FIR was lodged against the
applicant - Satinder Singh Bhasin and one another for the offences
punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, which was registered
as Case Crime No. 353 of 2015. Investigating Officer, after thorough
investigation, submitted a final report on 30.11.2016. Against the said
final report, a protest petition was filed on 13.03.2017. Thereafter,
Investigating Officer has submitted a charge sheet in the present
case on 17.02.2019. In the present case, various FIRs were lodged
against the present applicant and other persons with the allegations
of large scale misappropriation of fund and cheating with regard to
                                                     A482 No. 25724 of 2022
                              2


Grand Venice. Apart from the FIR No. 353 of 2015, Forty one (41)
FIRs were lodged in the various districts of Uttar Pradesh and five (5)
FIRs were lodged in New Delhi with the identical allegations. In the
present case, Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 12.05.2022,
has directed for clubbing of all FIRs i.e. Forty Six (46) and also
directed to the Investigating Officer to submit a composite charge
sheet. In compliance of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, a composite
charge sheet was submitted on 23.12.2022 under sections 420, 406
and 120 - B of IPC. Thereafter, a further supplementary charge-sheet
was also submitted on 10.04.2025.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted
that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature
arising out of a commercial transaction. The allegations, even if taken
at their face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of
offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. It is
submitted that there is no entrustment nor dishonest intention from
the inception, which are sine qua non for constituting the said
offences. It is further submitted that the project is ready and allotment
has been handed over to various buyers.

5. Learned Senior Counsel has vehemently submitted that for
fastening vicarious liability upon a Director or office bearers of a
company, the company itself must be arraigned as an accused. It is
further submitted that in the absence of the company being
impleaded as a party, prosecution against its Directors or officers
alone is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the vicarious
liability in criminal law cannot be fastened upon a Director or officers
of a company in the absence of specific allegations demonstrating
their active role in the commission of the offence. It is further
submitted that merely holding a position in the company is not
sufficient to attract criminal liability unless there are clear and
unambiguous averments indicating personal involvement.

6. It is further submitted that in the present case, the Investigating
Officer after due investigation, has submitted the final report
on 30.11.2016. Against the said final report, a protest petition was
filed by the opposite party no. 2 on 13.03.2017. He further submitted
that without passing any judicial order either accepting the final report
                                                      A482 No. 25724 of 2022
                              3


or treating the protest petition as a complaint case, the learned
Magistrate proceeded to direct further investigation. Pursuant thereto,
a supplementary charge-sheet under Section 406 I.P.C. has been
submitted. Learned counsel for the applicants has vehemently
contended that the entire proceedings are vitiated in law. In absence
of such order, the direction for submission of supplementary charge-
sheet is wholly without jurisdiction.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has vehemently
submitted that parallel civil proceedings bearing Original Suit No. 448
of 2017 is pending in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Patiala House
Courts, New Delhi. It is further submitted that insolvency proceedings
is also pending before the National Company Law Tribunal. It is
vehemently submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the present case, where appropriate civil proceedings are pending,
present criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed. In support of
their contentions, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has
placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of G. Sagar Suri vs State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636,
S.K. Alag v. State of U.P. and Others (2008) 5 SCC 662 and
Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited
(2012) 5 SCC 661.


8. Learned Senior Counsel appeared on behalf of opposite party no.
2 has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Senior
Counsel for the applicants. It is further submitted that the present
case is very distinct in nature. It is further submitted that the FIR No.
353 of 2015 relates to the non-payment of rent for the use of
shuttering material but the remaining FIRs, that are forty six (46),
primarily relates with large scale fraud involving misappropriation of
money and land. It is further submitted that the applicants, in
connivance with others, induced a large number of innocent buyers to
invest money in a project 'Grand Venice' and collected huge amounts
running into crores of rupees, but failed to deliver the promised
property, thereby causing wrongful loss to the investors and wrongful
gain to himself. It is further submitted that if the present FIR No. 353
of 2015 is quashed by this Hon'ble Court, the remaining FIR would
also be quashed. It is further submitted that in the interest of public at
                                                     A482 No. 25724 of 2022
                              4


large, the present matter must be tried by Trial Court concerned.

9. It is further submitted that on the perusal of FIR and statements
recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., prima facie offence has been
made out against the applicants. It is further submitted that the scope
of inherent power of Hon'ble High Court is very restricted with regard
to the quashing of Criminal Proceedings when the material available
on record, prima facie, discloses the commission of offence. It is
further submitted that pleas raised by the learned counsel for the
applicants involve the factual questions, which can be adjudicated at
the stage of trial.

10. It is further submitted that by Learned Senior Counsel for the
opposite party no.2 that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated
12.05.2022, has directed that Case Crime No. 353 of 2015 shall be
treated as the parent FIR and all other 46 FIRs be clubbed with it. In
compliance thereof, a composite charge-sheet has been filed and the
proceedings are continuing in accordance with law. It is further
submitted that in view of the said order, the challenge to the parent
FIR would have far-reaching consequences, affecting not only the
present case but also numerous connected FIRs, thereby prejudicing
the rights of a large number of victims. It is further submitted that the
material collected during investigation clearly discloses a prima facie
case against the applicants and, therefore, the matter requires
adjudication on evidence during trial. It is further submitted that
proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate have been initiated,
which further indicates the seriousness and magnitude of the alleged
offence.

11. Learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted
that the applicants in collusion with co-accused has fabricated and
forged allotment letter dated 15.4.2015, wherein a GST Number was
mentioned despite the fact that the GST was implemented on
01.07.2017. The conduct of applicants clearly shows that they have
dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction. It is further
submitted that the applicants and other co-accused were enlarged on
bail by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 6.11.2019. It is
further submitted that the bail of the applicants and other co-accused
has been cancelled by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated
                                                      A482 No. 25724 of 2022
                              5


02.04.2026 for not complying with the conditions of bail. It is further
submitted that the conduct of the applicants clearly shows that they
are not complying the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

12. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate the settled legal position
governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 has exhaustively laid down the categories of
cases wherein the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to
quash criminal proceedings. However, it has been equally
emphasized that such power is to be exercised sparingly and with
great caution. Further, in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Private
Limited v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court should not
embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of the
allegations and should refrain from interfering at the stage of
investigation or when a prima facie case is disclosed. Guided by the
aforesaid principles, this Court proceeds to examine the contentions
raised by the applicants.

13. On perusal of records, it appears that in the present matter,
an FIR was lodged against the applicants, namely Satinder Singh
Bhasin, and another under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, registered as
Case Crime No. 353 of 2015. It transpires that multiple FIRs were
lodged against the present applicants and other co-accused persons
in connection with alleged large-scale misappropriation of funds and
cheating relating to the "Grand Venice" project. In all, 41 FIRs were
registered in various districts of Uttar Pradesh and 5 FIRs were
lodged in New Delhi on similar allegations. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court, vide order dated 12.05.2022, directed that all the aforesaid 46
FIRs be clubbed together and further directed that Case Crime No.
353 of 2015 shall be treated as the parent FIR. It was also directed
that a composite charge-sheet be submitted. It transpires that FIR
No. 353 of 2015 is related to non-payment of money for the shuttering
material supplied but other 46 FIRs are related to serious allegations
of the misappropriation of the money and land. On the perusal of
records, it is evident that only some documents are available on
record with regard to other FIRs.
                                                        A482 No. 25724 of 2022
                               6


14. The submission advanced by the learned Senior Counsel with
regard to the absence of specific allegations against the applicants
has also been considered. However, the Court has also clarified that
where material on record discloses prima facie involvement, the
matter must proceed to trial. In the present case, whether the
applicants had any active role or mens rea is a matter which requires
evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage.

15. The argument that the dispute is purely of civil nature does not
persuade this Court at this stage. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.
Swaroopa Rani vs. M. Hari Narayana Alias Hari Babu, (2008) 5
SCC 765 has held as under:-

"11. It is, however, well settled that in a given case, civil proceedings and
criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously. Whether civil proceedings
or criminal proceedings shall be stayed depends upon the fact and
circumstances of each case. (See M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras [AIR 1954
SC 397] , Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah [(2005) 4 SCC 370 :
2005 SCC (Cri) 1101] and Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Assn.
of Chartered Certified Accountants [(2005) 12 SCC 226 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri)
544] "

On the perusal of the above mentioned judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court, it is evident that if a dispute gives rise to civil liability, it does
not mean that criminal proceedings are not maintainable if the
allegations disclose the ingredients of a criminal offence. It is also
evident that the presence of a civil dispute does not bar criminal
prosecution where allegations of fraud, cheating or dishonest
intention are made out. In the present case, the allegations prima
facie disclose inducement of a large number of persons and alleged
misappropriation of funds, which cannot be brushed aside as a mere
breach of contract.

16. This Court finds that it is not in dispute that the applicants were
granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.11.2019 and the
same has subsequently been cancelled by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court vide order dated 02.04.2026 due to non-compliance of the
conditions of bail. It is also evident that the co ordinate bench of this
court has granted the interim protection to the applicants in the
present case, but the applicants did not disclose the fact that a
                                                   A482 No. 25724 of 2022
                             7


charge sheet has already been submitted on 23.12.2022. The
cancellation of bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on account of
violation of conditions and the concealment of fact of submission of
the charge sheet while obtaining the order dated 27.04.2023 are
significant circumstances, which reflect upon the conduct of the
applicants.

17. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the submission
advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the opposite parties that
the present case has been treated as the parent FIR pursuant to the
directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is not in dispute
that by virtue of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, all
the connected FIRs, arising out of identical and similar allegations,
have been directed to be clubbed with the present FIR and a
composite charge-sheet has also been submitted. Thus, the present
FIR has assumed a central and pivotal position in the entire set of
proceedings. In such circumstances, any interference with the parent
FIR at this stage cannot be viewed in isolation. Quashing of the said
FIR would inevitably have a cascading and far-reaching effect on all
the connected FIRs, which have been consolidated pursuant to the
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The consequence of such
interference would be that the entire framework of investigation and
prosecution, as structured under the directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, may stand seriously affected. This would not only
disrupt the course of trial but may also lead to multiplicity of
proceedings and legal complications in respect of the connected
matters. More importantly, the allegations in the present case pertain
to large-scale financial irregularities and cheating affecting a
substantial number of investors/victims. Therefore, any premature
interference with the parent FIR would have the effect of prejudicing
the rights and interests of a large number of victims, whose
grievances are sought to be addressed through the consolidated
proceedings.

18. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any
good ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned proceedings.

19. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.
                                                                                       A482 No. 25724 of 2022
                                                                 8


                                    20. Application pending, if any, stands disposed of.

                                    April 9, 2026
                                    Akram
                                                                               (Padam Narain Mishra,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD AKRAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad