HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Matters Under Article 227 No. - 1836 of 2024 Seema Goel …..Petitioners(s) Versus State of U.P. & Anr. …..Respondents(s) Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Shivam Yadav, Udai Bhatia Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Rahul Chaudhary Court No. - 88 HON’BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shivam Yadav alongwith Shri Udai Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rahul Chaudhary alongwith Shri Punit Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, and Shri H.P. Singh, learned A.G.A.-I, appearing for the State-respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 10.01.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, in Criminal Revision No.184 of 2023, whereby the Criminal Revision has been dismissed and the order dated 06.10.2022, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Ghaziabad, was affirmed, wherein the discharge application filed by the accused was dismissed. 3. Brief facts of this case are that the respondent/complainant G.S. Raghav lodged an FIR against 10 accused persons, namely Rohit Batra, Amit Yadav, Avdesh Kumar Goyal, Smt. Seema Goyal, Vikash Gupta, Smt. Renu. Rajneesh Mittal, Smt. Mamta Mittal, Atul Gupta and Renu Gupta under sections 420, 406, 415, 418, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 2 Matters Under Article 227 No. - 1836 of 2024 Section 34 IPC as case crime No. 1889/2018 at police station Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad. He alleged that in the month of February/March 2014, the co-accused Rohit Batra and Amit Yadav, posing as the Vice President and sales executive of Earth Infrastructure Ltd., contacted him by telephone. Relying on them, the complainant called them to meet at his address. The accused told him that the aforesaid company will build a project in Gautam Budh Nagar and the said company is registered under the Companies Act 1956. This company is engaged in the construction of housing and commercial complexes in Noida and Greater Noida. 3.1. They further convinced the complainant to invest in the project, which will result in handsome returns. Thereafter, both of them arranged a meeting between the complainant and the other named accused persons, presenting them as promoters/directors/shareholders. These accused persons, apart from Rohit Batra and Amit Yadav, assured the complainant that their company is building many projects and if the complainant invests in their project, it will fetch him handsome returns. On believing the assurances given by them, the complainant invested Rs. 1,80,00,000/-, which he paid by cash and cheques, in their project, namely T-Z 06, Tech Zone, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, and also booked a space of 2000 Square feet. An MOU between the complainant and the accused company was also signed, and it was assured by the accused persons that the complainant will receive assured profit of 14% on the invested amount of Rs. 72,21,059/-. The company also delivered 41 cheques to the complainant in lieu of the said assurance. Out of the said 41 cheques, only 28 were honoured by the banks, and he received Rs. 50,90,436/-; however, the remaining 13 cheques, amounting to Rs. 24,30,623, were dishonoured. The complainant reminded the accused persons that the company, which had deducted an amount of Rs. 8,35,691/- as T.D.S., had not deposited it. It was assured that the company will deposit the TDS very soon. Sensing the accused's dubious conduct, the complainant became suspicious and felt he was being duped by the accused. So, without any further delay, 3 Matters Under Article 227 No. - 1836 of 2024 the complainant contacted Rohit Batra and Amit Yadav, who had initially arranged his meeting with the accused persons. In this meeting, the accused persons assured the complainant that the cheque amount would be recovered by redepositing the cheques in the bank once again. Relying on their assurance, the complainant again submitted the cheques to its bankers, but the thirteen cheques were again dishonoured. Even the accused company had not deposited the TDS amount of Rs. 8,35,691 in the income tax department. 3.2. Again, the complainant contacted the accused persons and made a visit to the project site, where he found that no construction existed on land that was supposed to be owned by the company. Thereafter, the complainant approached the police authorities to register an FIR against the promoters/directors/shareholders of the company for failing to fulfil the promises made in the MOU dated 01.05.2014 and for duping the complainant of an amount of Rs. 2,04,30,623/-. During the investigation, the investigating officer found no evidence against the petitioner and accordingly submitted a final report in her favour, recording that the petitioner was neither the director nor the signatory of Earth Infrastructure Limited or Earth Iconic Infrastructure Limited (EIIL) for any purpose. 3.3. But on 26.02.2019, on the complaint of the complainant, the I.O. was changed and the incumbent I.O. after recording the supplementary statement of the witnesses and conducting investigation with respect to the companies owned by the petitioner, arrayed her as an accused in the supplementary charge-sheet by recording the finding that huge amount collected by the accused company, i.e. Earth Infrastructure Limited and Earth Iconic Infrastructure Limited (EIIL) has been siphoned of through the approx 38 companies owned by the petitioner. 4. Shri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire controversy arises out of an investment transaction governed by an MOU dated 1.5.2014 entered into between Earth Iconic Infrastructure Private Limited and M/s G.S. Raghav (HUF) through its Karta, arrayed herein as respondent no.2. As per the aforesaid 4 Matters Under Article 227 No. - 1836 of 2024 MOU, the complainant’s company made an investment of Rs.54 lakhs with assured monthly return. 4.1. Shri Tiwari further argued that Rs.50.90 lakhs, out of 54 lakhs, have been returned to the complainant's company. Certain cheques issued by the company were dishonoured, and the complainant/respondent has been availing the remedies available under the N.I. Act, therefore, no criminal case is made out against the petitioner. 4.2. He next submitted that even if the complainant’s case is admitted in its entirety, the dispute will emerge as a civil dispute arising out of alleged non-payment of the part returns. 4.3. No role has been assigned to the petitioner in the entire charge- sheet. She is arrayed as an accused, being the legally wedded wife of the alleged main accused. A bare reading of the FIR and charge-sheet(s) reveals a clear and mechanical pattern of naming the wives of directors of the accused companies, without attributing to any specific role, overt act, or inducement of higher returns. He next submitted that the petitioner was never a director or signatory to any of the bank accounts of the Earth Iconic Infrastructure Private Limited, and had no concern with the day-to-day business affairs of the company. 4.4. The learned trial Court has erroneously conducted a roving inquiry at the stage of discharge; such an approach defeats the very object of Section 227 Cr.P.C. and amounts to holding a mini-trial at the stage of discharge. 4.5. The ingredients of sections 406, 420 and 409 IPC have not been made out against the petitioner on plain reading of FIR, supplementary charge-sheet and the material collected during investigation. 4.6. Learned Senior Counsel further stated that it is an admitted position that the company entered the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process on 20.8.2018, prior to registration of FIR, and an Interim Resolution Professional has already been appointed to manage the affairs of the company; therefore, carrying with the criminal proceedings qua petitioner, is unsustainable. 5 Matters Under Article 227 No. - 1836 of 2024 4.7. The petitioner has been made an accused in a supplementary charge- sheet erroneously; the company has not been made an accused, and the trial court has placed reliance erroneously upon the inadmissible material while rejecting the discharge application. 5. Per contra, Shri Rahul Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that: 5.1. The petitioner-accused is one of the Director in the companies through which the cheated amount has been siphoned off. Rs. 2,04,30,623/- was invested by the complainant company on the assurance of the accused company and its Director for a monthly return on the invested money, and the petitioner was made an accused in the supplementary charge-sheet after her role surfaced during further investigation. 5.2. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on the charge-sheet(s) and the summoning order(s) was assailed before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Since the co-accused’s application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was rejected on merits with the liberty to file a discharge application through counsel, the petitioner has also sought withdrawal on a similar line and thereby the applicant’s application was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to move a discharge application before the trial court. 5.3. The applicant filed the discharge application before the learned trial court, which was rejected vide order dated 6.10.2022. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision before the Sessions Court, Ghaziabad, which was rejected vide the detailed and reasoned impugned order dated 10.1.2024. 5.4. Shri Rahul Chaudhary further submitted that despite having no interim protection, the applicant did not appear before the trial Court for almost five years, after filing of supplementary charge-sheet. 5.5. On merits, the accused had offered for a sale of 2000 square feet of commercial space at the ground floor in the proposed mall through an MOU dated 1.5.2024. The accused company had no land at the time the 6 Matters Under Article 227 No. - 1836 of 2024 MOU was executed, and glossy pictures were shown to the buyers to attract investment on false and baseless projections, with the sole intention of cheating the investors. There was no sanction plan for the construction of a commercial complex, nor were the necessary approvals taken by the company. 5.6. The 161 Cr.P.C. statement reveals that the applicant accused had met the complainant in person and induced him to invest in her company, thereby the complainant's company suffered huge financial loss. 5.7. He next submitted that there is no bar under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016, to prosecute the offending company and its directors/promoters for criminal offences, in which insolvency proceedings have been initiated under IBC, 2016. 5.8. The money collected by the Earth Infrastructure Private Limited and Earth Iconic Infrastructure Private Limited, siphoned through the 38 companies owned by the petitioner, and the petitioner is a director in all those companies. The petitioner is a Promoter and shareholder of the accused companies, Earth Infrastructure Private Limited and Earth Iconic Infrastructure Private Limited. And placed reliance upon Parcha No. 16 of the case diary annexed as Annexure-WS-1 of the written submission, where the findings have been recorded by the Investigating Officer about the siphoning of amounts through various companies owned by the petitioner. 6. After hearing learned counsel Shri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shivam Yadav alongwith Shri Udai Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rahul Chaudhary alongwith Shri Punit Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, and on perusal of the impugned order, and supplementary charge-sheet, this Court is of the view that a ‘mini trial’ cannot be conducted at the stage of deciding the discharge application filed by the accused. At this stage, the Court shall determine whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused. For this purpose, it is required to peruse the material collected by the Investigating Officer; however, the admissibility and reliability of such material are not to be conclusively adjudicated at this stage, as they are 7 Matters Under Article 227 No. - 1836 of 2024 matters to be tested during trial, where the prosecution will have the opportunity to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and accused will be afforded an opportunity to prove his/ her innocence. 7. So far as the role of the petitioner is concerned, it has been dealt with by the learned Revisional Court in para 6 and 7 of the impugned order, wherein the learned Revisional Court has recorded a finding that the co- accused Rohit and Amit Yadav were instrumental in introducing the complainant to the accused persons. The petitioner, Seema Goyal, was also among the people working for the company with whom the complainant had met, and she had also assured a guaranteed return on the investment. It is further recorded that the role of the petitioner has been unfolded by the Investigating Officer in parcha nos. 16, 21 and 30 of the supplementary charge-sheet, forming part of the supplementary charge-sheet. The Earth Iconic Infrastructure Private Limited, owned by the other co-accused, has systematically transferred Rs. 9,84,83,987/- to the account of the petitioner, Seema Goyal. The investigation further reveals that approximately Rs. 176 crores collected from the buyers have been illegally transferred to various companies owned by the petitioners, Seema Goyal, Mamta Mittal, Renu Gupta, and Reshu Gupta. In this way a huge amount has been siphoned off by the petitioner for her personal gain in a pre-planned conspiracy to cheat almost 5000 investors. 8. The findings recorded by the learned Revisional Court, upon due consideration of the material collected during investigation and the parameters governing adjudication at the stage of discharge, do not suffer from any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Revisional Court has rightly confined itself to examining whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the charge-sheet and accompanying material, and has not transgressed into the appreciation of evidence, which is the exclusive domain of the trial. 8 Matters Under Article 227 No. - 1836 of 2024 9. Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial proceedings and to ensure that no unnecessary or repetitive adjournments are granted to the accused(s). In the event that repetitive personal exemption applications by the accused(s) are filed without disclosing cogent and sufficient reasons, the same shall be considered and disposed of by passing a reasoned order, so as to subserve the mandate of a fair and speedy trial and to enforce the terms on which bail was granted. Needless to say, the offence was alleged to have been committed in 2014, and the first charge-sheet was filed on 22.2.2017, followed by the supplementary charge-sheet on 22.7.2017. And the trial has not begun yet. 10. The findings recorded by this court shall not affect the merits of the case or subsequent proceedings. The same has been recorded to decide the present case. February 26, 2026 A.Tripathi (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad