Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea to Quash Second FIR Against Cement Company Directors

In a significant ruling on October 29, the Delhi High Court declined to quash a second FIR lodged against the directors and former directors of KJS Cement (I) Ltd, including Managing Director Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia, in a case involving allegations of cheating and forgery. The court stated that the investigation is still in its early stages, highlighting the distinct nature of the allegations in both FIRs.

The plea, which sought to dismiss the second FIR on the grounds that it was largely repetitive of the first, was rejected by Justice Subramonium Prasad. The judge noted that the second FIR is based on fresh facts that surfaced post the filing of the initial FIR, asserting that the scope of the two FIRs is different and the overlap does not affect their validity.

READ ALSO  Right to marry person of choice indelible, family can't object: Delhi HC

Himangini Singh, the daughter of the late KJS Ahluwalia and niece of Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia, filed the second FIR. Represented by advocate Vijay Aggarwal, Singh’s complaint brought to light alleged misappropriations of company funds for personal use by the accused.

Video thumbnail

The court remarked that the first FIR primarily dealt with the alleged document fabrication aimed at ousting Singh and other class-I heirs of the late KJS Ahluwalia from the company by forging documents. The subsequent FIR, however, centers on the alleged financial mismanagement within the company.

“The allegations of misappropriation of company funds constitute a cognizable offence, necessitating a thorough police investigation,” the court observed. It also dismissed the petitioner’s argument questioning Singh’s locus standi, citing ongoing proceedings at the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) concerning the company’s share transfers, which confirm her stake and interest in the matter.

READ ALSO  Whether a Person whom the police did not arrest during the investigation could be sent to custody when he appears after summons?

Advocate Aggarwal highlighted the severity of the accusations in the second FIR, pointing out that after allegedly seizing control of the company, the accused engaged in illegal transactions and misappropriated company assets.

READ ALSO  Non Supply of Reasons in Writing to Dentenue in the Language He Understands is Violation of Article 22(5), Rules Delhi HC 

Law Trend
Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles