KUSH BHASIN & ANR Vs. STATE & ANR.
LAWS(DLH)-2020-7-72
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on July 06,2020

Kush Bhasin And Anr Appellant
VERSUS
State And Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

C.HARI SHANKAR - (1.)(Video-Conferencing) On the complaint of the second respondent Siddhartha Kasana, FIR No.0093 was registered, by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), against the petitioners, alleging commission of offences, by them, under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (" IPC ").
(2.)The second petitioner is the father of the first petitioner, and the second respondent was the complainant in the aforesaid FIR.
(3.)The allegations, in the FIR, may be paraphrased thus: The second respondent was the executive director of a company known as MSD Aviation Pvt. Ltd. He alleged that the first petitioner had represented, to him, that he was a pilot, and that both the petitioners assured the second respondent that, if he were to invest in Jakarta, Indonesia, he would reap handsome profits on the investment. The second respondent alleged that he fell into a trap and was, by the petitioners, induced to invest in Jakarta. For this purpose, he also claimed to have been induced to incorporate the company M/s MSD Aviation Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "MSD Aviation") in February, 2011, of which the second respondent was the executive director and the first petitioner was the Director (Operations). The FIR alleges, further, that, till March, 2013, an amount of ? 8 crores had been invested, by the second respondent, in the account of the first petitioner in various banks. It is further alleged that, in November, 2012, the petitioners handed over, to the second respondent, a cheque for ? 9 crores, as security in lieu of the investments made by the second respondent, but that the said cheque was dishonoured. This, according to the FIR, had resulted in wrongful enrichment of the petitioners at the expense of the second respondent. Alleging that, on seeking to communicate, with the petitioners, he had been threatened, the second respondent sought initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, which resulted in the registration of the aforesaid FIR, under Section 406 / 420 / 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.