Trial Court Erred in Not Considering Chargesheet and Materials Provided by Investigating Officer – Discharge Order Set Aside – Delhi HC

Share:
property interest free Property Worker Bail Medical Work Bail spDispute a Suit v Illegal Duty office Dowry Husband Parole marriage statements Financial Children Pay Property vLife PostClaims Evidence Medical delhi Goods Hindu Marriage Act Life Evidence Service Agreement CashPetitioner POCSO Property violence VIGOURA Eviction evidence BSuicide ail stability Property Advocates Samsung tax EWS Workman Delhi Delhi High Court HALDIRAM Suit Health bailDate of Decision: April 03, 2024 M/S DSS Buildtech Pvt. Ltd vs. Manoj Kayal Chargesheet bankEvidence Tobacco Payments Jail Google family non-appearance-despite-repeated-warnings-persistent-evasion-from-cbi Tribunal's Divorce Education cbi Bail Written written Disciplinary Mobile Affidavit Payment limited rape Divorce violence publication natco parole accident 25 License Cross-Examine family Maintenance public Publication Bail father Bail  specific Habitual bail OBC-NCL deed disciplinary missing property nature ews sarfaesi jail post amendment evidence jurisdiction government Candidates license Training property Cheque maintenance property 304 evidence diploma police tax divorce divorce police negligence contract disability

The Delhi High Court, in the matter of Shiv Raj Singh vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors, has overturned the Trial Court’s decision to discharge the respondents in a case of alleged fraudulent share transfer and falsification of company records. This move highlights the High Court’s insistence on the proper consideration of chargesheets and investigative materials in judicial proceedings.

Background and Legal Point of Judgement: The revision petition was filed against the discharge of respondents in FIR No. 177/2013 under Sections 420/406/468/471/384/120B IPC. The petitioner, a Director of M/s Kempty Konstructions Private Limited, alleged fraudulent transfer of his shares and removal as director using forged documents.

Facts and Issues in the Judgment:

The petitioner claimed his shares were transferred without his consent, and directorship removed using forged documents.

The case also involved contrasting findings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

The Trial Court had failed to consider the chargesheet and other materials provided by the Investigating Officer.

Court Assessment and Detailed Observations:

On the Role of Petitioner and Respondents: The High Court noted that the Trial Court did not adequately consider the chargesheet and investigation materials detailing the alleged illegal transfer and directorship removal.

Findings of NCLT: The High Court acknowledged the NCLT’s findings but emphasized the different materials before the criminal court and the distinct nature of civil and criminal proceedings.

On the Applicability of Judicial Precedents: The court discussed several case laws, highlighting the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings and the different standards of proof required.

Reliance on Investigating Officer’s Materials: The High Court criticized the Trial Court for not adequately considering the chargesheet and investigation materials.

Decision: The Delhi High Court set aside the discharge of the respondents and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a careful examination of the chargesheet and other investigation materials. The Trial Court is directed to give the parties an opportunity for representation.

Date of Decision: April 02, 2024

Shiv Raj Singh vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors

Download Judgment

Share: