MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

"Criminal Conspiracy Cannot Be Cloaked as Civil Dispute," Says Delhi High Court in VLS Finance Case

06 September 2024 12:13 PM

By: sayum


The Delhi High Court has dismissed multiple petitions seeking to quash an FIR filed against the directors of VLS Finance Ltd., rejecting the argument that the dispute was purely civil in nature. The judgment, delivered by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, underscores the need for a comprehensive investigation given the serious allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and breach of trust.

The case revolves around a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed on March 11, 1995, between Sunair Hotels Ltd. and VLS Finance Ltd., a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC). According to the complainant, Sunair Hotels, the directors of VLS Finance misrepresented their financial stability and intentions, inducing the complainant to part with 70 lakh shares at a significantly undervalued price. It is alleged that VLS Finance did not fulfill its financial commitments under the MoU, including the provision of a Rs. 10 crore security deposit and arranging Rs. 85 crores in loans, thereby jeopardizing Sunair’s hotel project in New Delhi.

The court found no merit in the petitioners’ claim that the order directing the registration of the FIR was passed without application of mind. Justice Sharma noted that the Magistrate had considered the allegations and found that a cognizable offense was prima facie made out, justifying the registration of the FIR under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

Rejecting the petitioners' contention that the matter was purely civil, the court highlighted the nature of the allegations, which included criminal conspiracy, cheating, and breach of trust. The court observed that these allegations required a thorough investigation, which could not be prematurely dismissed as a civil dispute.

The judgment emphasized the principles set by the Supreme Court in cases like Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which mandate that FIRs should only be quashed in the rarest of rare cases. The court noted that the allegations, if proven, would constitute serious offenses, and thus, the investigation must proceed.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma remarked, "In cases involving complex financial transactions and allegations of criminal breach of trust, it is imperative that the investigative agencies are allowed to collect evidence and ascertain the truth."

The dismissal of the petitions reaffirms the judiciary’s stance on ensuring thorough investigations in cases involving serious allegations of financial fraud and conspiracy. The decision paves the way for the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the accused, with the court leaving it open for them to challenge the findings at the stage of framing charges.

Date of Decision: September 3, 2024

Rajinder Kumar Puri & Ors. vs. State & Anr.

Latest Legal News