Chintels India Limited v. Union Of India & ANR.

$~Writ-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 979/2020 & CRL.M.A. 8324/2020 CHINTELS INDIA LIMITED .....Petitioner Through Mr. Manav Gupta, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

....Respondents Through Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R D E R

% 07.08.2020 [Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19] 1.

Though opportunities were granted on 29.06.2020 and 08.07.2020 to the respondents to file a counter-affidavit in the matter, no counter-affidavit has been filed as yet.

2.

Mr. Amit Mahajan, learned CGSC, says that he has received instructions to the effect that the police continue to carry out further investigation concerning scheduled offence(s) and, therefore, there is a likelihood of a supplementary charge-sheet being filed in the matter. 2.1 Mr. Mahajan says that while cognizance has been taken by the concerned Court, charges have not been framed as yet. 3.

On the previous date i.e. 08.07.2020, I had restrained the respondents from taking any precipitate action against the petitioner in pursuance of the Enforcement Case Information Report i.e. ECIR/0I/HIU/20I9 dated 25.01.2019 [in short "subject ECIR"] solely on the ground that the chargesheet did not advert to a scheduled offence. 1/3

4.

It is also not disputed by Mr. Mahajan that the charge-sheet adverts to the fact that the petitioner has not been found as having infracted the provisions of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [in short "IPC"], which is a scheduled offence.

5.

I may only indicate that Mr. Mahajan says that since the investigation is on, there is a possibility of not only the petitioner being charged under Section 420 of the IPC, but also qua other scheduled offence(s) as well. 6.

Given the aforesaid circumstances, what is clear is that there is nothing on record before the concerned Court, which points in the direction that the petitioner has infracted a provision of the IPC, which is a scheduled offence.

7.

Therefore, for the moment, the only direction that can been issued, whereby the interests of both the petitioner and the respondents are protected, is that the subject ECIR be closed with liberty to the respondents to revive the same if a supplementary charge-sheet is filed and/or a charge is frame qua the petitioner concerning scheduled offence(s). 7.1 It is ordered accordingly.

7.2 Needless to add, till such position obtains, the respondents cannot take any precipitate action against the petitioner in pursuance of the subject ECIR.

8.

Mr. Manav Gupta, who appears for the petitioner, says that the methodology adopted by the Court will balance the concerns of both the sides.

2/3

9.

The captioned writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J AUGUST 07, 2020 PMC/KK Click here to check corrigendum, if any 3/3