Ved Prakash v. State of H.P.

The Cyber Blog IndiaCase SummaryLeave a Comment

Ved Prakash v. State of H.P.

Ved Prakash v. State of H.P.
In the High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Cr. M.M.O 53/2015
Before Justice Tarlak Singh Chauhan
Decided on July 29, 2016

Relevancy of the case: Quashing of FIR in a case involving misrepresentation and forged documents

Statutes and Provisions Involved

  • The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66D)
  • The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 420, 506)
  • The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 482)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • In 2009, the directors of Arma Colonizers Private Limited invited the petitioner and his son to join the company as additional directors as the company was allotted a hydroelectric project at Sardadi.
  • The petitioner agreed to invest 75% in the project and based on this agreement the petitioner and his son entered into an MOU with the then directors.
  • To promote the project, bids were invited for the execution of work and during the tender process, respondents 2 and 3 were allotted the work and a separate agreement was initiated between them, signed by the petitioner on behalf of Arma Colonizer (P) Ltd. However, the work was not executed properly and they blamed the contractors for entering into the agreement with bad intentions and ill motive.
  • Due to this, relations between respondents and the petitioners were strained and they lodged an FIR against the petitioner.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates: –

  • The petitioner’s counsel claimed that the FIR was in response to the legal notice that the petitioner had served them claiming ₹2 crores for defamation and malicious prosecution.
  • The respondent’s counsel stated that the FIR was justified since another FIR is lodged against him under Section 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000. They had allegedly forged the documents fraudulently to extract the amount. He had also threatened them via phone calls. They also stated that the petitioner not only persuaded them to enter into an agreement but also misappropriated the money advanced to him with the intention of cheating.

Opinion of the Bench

  • It was stated that the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are very wide and should be exercised with great caution to resonate sound legal principles.
  • Also, as per the complainants, the petitioners had deceitfully procured a sum of ₹93,95,285 by alluring them that his loan of ₹90 crores was about to be sanctioned. This was still under the course of investigation.

Final Decision

  • Petition dismissed.

This case summary has been prepared by Loreal Sahay, an undergraduate student at University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2021.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *