Dinesh Gupta vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022)

DINESH GUPTA …Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. …Respondent(s)

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.564 of 2023)

RAJESH GUPTA …Appellant(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

VIKRAM NATH, J. & RAJESH BINDAL, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Unscrupulous litigants should not be allowed to Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

go scot-free. They should be put to strict terms SONIA BHASIN Date: 2024.01.11 17:22:29 IST Reason:

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 1 of 33

and conditions including costs. It is time to

check with firmness such litigation initiated and

laced with concealment, falsehood, and forum

hunting. Even State actions or conduct of

government servants being party to such

malicious litigation should be seriously

reprimanded. In the instant case, we find

initiation of criminal proceedings before a forum

which had no territorial jurisdiction by

submitting incorrect facts and giving frivolous

reasons to entertain such complaints. A closer

look at the respondent’s actions reveals more

than just an inappropriate use of jurisdiction.

The core issue of the dispute, which involves

financial transactions and agreements, clearly

places it in the realm of civil and commercial

law. Yet, the respondent chose to pursue

criminal charges in a quest to abuse the

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 2 of 33 criminal justice system with a motive to seek

personal vengeance rather than seeking true

justice. This unnecessary turning of a civil

matter into a criminal case not only

overburdens the criminal justice system but

also violates the principles of fairness and right

conduct in legal matters. The apparent misuse

of criminal proceedings in this case not only

damages trust in our legal system but also sets

a harmful precedent if not addressed.

3. A common order1 passed by the High Court2

dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants

seeking quashing of the summoning order3 has

been impugned in the present appeals.

1 Dated 17.02.2022 in Applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No(s).29852 of 2021 & 25990 of 2021 2 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 3 Dated 15.02.2021 in Case No.2828 of 2021 (re-numbered as 4084 of 2021)

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 3 of 33 FACTUAL MATRIX –

4. Karan Gambhir, who owns M/s D.D. Global

Capital Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

Company’) is the complainant in the FIR4 which

was registered against Sushil Gupta, Rajesh

Gupta, Dinesh Gupta, Baljeet Singh & others.

Three private limited companies had also been

arrayed as accused i.e. BDR5, Gulab Buildtech6

and Verma Buildtech7. The individuals,

namely, Sushil Gupta, Rajesh Gupta and

Dinesh Gupta are stated to be the promoters of

the aforesaid three companies.

5. Only two of the accused persons, i.e. Dinesh

Gupta and Rajesh Gupta approached the High

4 FIR No.1271 of 2018 dated 29.07.2018 registered at Gautam Budh Nagar Police Station, NOIDA 5 M/s BDR Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘BDR’) 6 M/s Gulab Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Gulab Buildtech’) 7 M/s Verma Buildtech and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Verma Buildtech’)

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 4 of 33 Court seeking quashing of the summoning

order and the FIR. Nothing was pointed out at

the time of hearing that any matter filed by any

other accused is pending either in this Court or

High Court.

6. It is alleged by the complainant that his

company was induced to extend short-term

loans of ₹ 5,16,00,000/- to Gulab Buildtech and

₹ 11,29,50,000/- to Verma Buildtech

respectively. Later, the said loan was converted

into debt equity allegedly promising high

returns from real estate business to the

complainant. The shares were allotted at an

exorbitant price. The complainant acquired

21% shareholding in Verma Buildtech, whereas,

in Gulab Buildtech, the shareholding was to the

tune of 4.53%. A share pledge agreement was

forged, allegedly to have been executed in favour

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 5 of 33 of Sushil Gupta, one of the accused (not before

this Court). Some scheme of amalgamation was

made by Gulab Buildtech and Verma Buildtech

to amalgamate the aforesaid companies with

BDR, as a result of which, the percentage of

shareholding of the company reduced

considerably. No notice was served on the

company of the proposed amalgamation. The

amalgamation was got approved from the Delhi

High Court. The share certificates were allegedly

never physically handed over to the

complainant.

7. The complainant further alleged that when he

asked the accused to return the loan with

interest, initially time was sought stating that

there is slump in the real estate market and

thereafter, the accused started ignoring the

complainant. That is when the complainant

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 6 of 33 decided to take legal recourse against the

accused. Prayer was made in the police

complaint for registration of a case of cheating

and forgery against the accused. While filing

the complaint, the complainant had given his

address as ‘C/o A & A Earth Movers, D-9,

Sector-2, Noida Sector-20, Gautam Budh

Nagar, U.P.’

8. After investigation, the police found that a case

was made out against the accused under

Sections 420, 467 and 120-B of the IPC. A

charge-sheet was filed on 29.12.2020.

Accordingly, the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Gautam Budh Nagar, vide order dated

15.02.2021 took cognizance and issued

summons to the accused.

9. The appellants filed petitions under Section 482

of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court seeking

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 7 of 33 quashing of the FIR and the summoning order

dated 15.02.2021. The petitions having been

dismissed by the composite order passed by the

High Court, the same are under challenge in the

present appeals.

ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANTS –

10. Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Nakul Dewan and Ms.

Anjana Prakash, learned senior counsels for the

appellants submitted that the complainant who

owns the company invested a sum of

₹5,16,00,000/- in Gulab Buildtech and

₹11,29,50,000/- in Verma Buildtech by

acquiring equity shares thereof. Prior to the

investment, a resolution was passed by the

company in the meeting of the Board of

Directors held on 25.03.2011, approving

investment of ₹11,29,50,000/- in the equity

shares of Verma Buildtech. Similarly, by a

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 8 of 33 resolution dated 26.08.2011, investment in the

equity shares of ₹5,16,00,000/- was approved

in Gulab Buildtech. Hence, the complainant’s

case that it was a short-term loan given by the

company, was totally contrary to the record

since a conscious decision had been taken by

the company to make investments in the equity

shares of Gulab Buildtech and Verma

Buildtech. The above two resolutions are

reproduced hereunder:

First Resolution:

“AUTHORIZATION TO INVEST INTO THE EQUITY SHARES OF M/S VERMA BUILDTECH & PROMOTORS PRIVATE LTD.

The Chairman apprised the Board of Directors of the Company about the benefit of investment into the equity shares of M/s Verma Buildtech & Promoters Private Ltd offered by way of private placement. The Directors discussed about the same at length and the following resolutions were passed.

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 9 of 33 "RESOLVED THAT the company be and is herewith authorized to make an investment of Rupees Eleven Crore Twenty Nine Lacs and Fifty Thousand only (Rs.11,29,50,000/-) in pursuance of the provision of the companies Act, 1956."

"RESOLVED FURTHER THAT Mr. Narender Kumar and Mr. Tarun Kumar Director of the company be and are hereby severally authorized to do the necessary act including the signing of the documents, deed and agreement and other necessary paper which are incidental and consequential to give effect to the above said resolution and collect the Share certificates." Second Resolution:

AUTHORIZATION TO INVEST INTO THE EQUITY SHARES OF M/S GULAB BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED.

The Chairman apprised the Board of Directors of the Company about the benefit of investment into the equity shares of M/S GULAB BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED offered by way of private placement. The Directors discussed about the same at length and the following resolutions were passed.

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 10 of 33 "RESOLVED THAT the company be and is herewith authorized to make an investment of Rupees Five Crores Sixteen Lacs only (Rs.5, 16,00,000/-) in pursuance of the provision of the companies Act, 1956."

"RESOLVED FURTHER THAT Mr. Narender Kumar and Mr. Tarun Kumar Director of the company be and are hereby severally authorized to do the necessary act including the signing of the documents, deed and agreement and other necessary paper which are incidental and consequential to give effect to the above said resolution and collect the Share certificates."

11. In 2012, when the petition8 was filed seeking

amalgamation of Gulab Buildtech and Verma

Buildtech with BDR, the Delhi High Court, as

per requirements, had issued notice to all the

shareholders of the two companies on

09.07.2012. No objection was raised by the

complainant or the company at that stage. On

20.02.2013, the scheme of amalgamation was

8 Company Petition No.287 of 2012

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 11 of 33 approved by the Delhi High Court in terms of

which the company became entitled to 3,74,280

shares of BDR. On 08.03.2013, a letter was

written by Gulab Buildtech and Verma

Buildtech to the complainant to surrender

original share certificates of Gulab Buildtech

and Verma Buildtech to facilitate issuance of

new certificates.

12. Nearly one year after the amalgamation, on

31.01.2014, DD Global Capital Limited, the

company of the complainant filed an

application9 before the Delhi High Court seeking

recall of the order of amalgamation passed by

the High Court as it was without any notice to

the company. Other grounds were also raised

in this application for recalling the order of

amalgamation. The aforesaid application was

9 Company Application No.321 of 2014

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 12 of 33 dismissed by the High Court on 15.03.2016 by

a detailed order dealing with all the issues

raised. The order attained finality as the

company did not challenge the same any

further. In the aforesaid proceedings, a letter

dated 08.10.2014, allegedly written by Sushil

Gupta, one of the accused (not before this

Court), claiming that the shares of the company

with Verma Buildtech were pledged to him, was

also placed on record. This issue was also dealt

with by the High Court.

13. More than two years after the application filed

by the company was dismissed by Delhi High

Court, the instant complaint was filed with the

police at Gautam Budh Nagar, on the basis of

which FIR in question was registered on

29.07.2018.

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 13 of 33

14. It is the appellants’ submission that a purely

civil dispute with reference to financial

transactions between corporates is sought to be

given colour of a criminal case. Though the

company does not have any connection

whatsoever with Gautam Budh Nagar and all

the transactions were held at New Delhi

between the parties, which are based in New

Delhi, yet the complaint was filed at Gautam

Budh Nagar. Even the address of the

complainant given in the complaint is ‘C/o A &

A Earth Movers, D-9, Sector-2, Noida Sector-20,

Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.’ which neither

belongs to the complainant nor his company.

The aforesaid facts clearly establish that the

idea was only to harass the appellants.

15. In fact, the dispute amongst the parties has

already been referred to Arbitration by the Delhi

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 14 of 33 High Court vide order dated 15.05.2019 and the

company has already filed its claim before the

sole Arbitrator.

16. The aforesaid facts clearly establish that no case

was made out against the appellants. Further,

there is no allegation pertaining to forging of any

documents against them. It was a simple

business transaction. Arm-twisting method to

recover any dues cannot be permitted to be

used. In support of the appellants’ arguments,

reliance was placed on the judgment of this

Court in Randheer Singh v. The State of U.P.

& others10.

17. It was submitted that there was total non-

application of mind by the Trial court while

passing summoning order, which is entirely

non-speaking in nature. Even the High Court

10 2021 INSC 440: (2021) 14 SCC 626.

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 15 of 33 failed to consider the arguments raised by the

appellants.

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT –

COMPLAINANT

18. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned

senior counsel for the respondent-complainant,

submitted that solely on persuasion of the

accused, huge amount of short-term loan was

advanced. Subsequently, shares were allotted,

which were never handed over to the

complainant. The companies whose shares

were allotted, namely, Gulab Buildtech and

Verma Buildtech were amalgamated with BDR.

During the process of amalgamation, despite

being a shareholder, the complainant was not

issued any notice. As a result of amalgamation,

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 16 of 33 the percentage of shareholding of the company

was reduced considerably.

19. The letter conveying that the company had

pledged its shares to Sushil Gupta shows that

certain documents had been forged. He further

referred to the order dated 20.02.2013 passed

by the High Court in Co. Pet. No. 287 of 2012,

showing that the accused persons are

connected with each other. He also referred to

the Balance Sheet of Gulab Buildtech and

Verma Buildtech to show that the amount

advanced by the complainant was shown in the

column of ‘current liabilities’. Indian

Accounting Standards have been referred to

show the meaning of ‘current liabilities’ which is

in the form of short-term loan.

20. The argument is that the accused persons in

connivance with each other have cheated the

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 17 of 33 complainant for crores of rupees by making

false promise of higher returns. There is no

error in the order passed by the High Court. The

appeals deserve to be dismissed.

FINDINGS –

21. We have heard learned counsel for the parties

and perused the material on record.

22. On a complaint filed by the respondent no.2,

FIR in question was registered on 29.07.2018.

The address of the company D.D. Global was

mentioned as ‘C/o A & A Earth Movers, D-9,

Sector-2, Noida Sector-20, Gautam Budh

Nagar, U.P.’ to be the present as well as the

permanent address. This is the first misleading

statement made by the complainant. From a

copy of the resolution passed by the DD Global

dated 25.03.2011, it is evident that the

registered office of the DD Global is located at F-

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 18 of 33 1/9, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi.

Even at the time of hearing, it remained

undisputed that DD Global is not carrying on

any business at Noida, nor has it rented the

place mentioned above. Further, the firm ‘A & A

Earth Movers’ whose c/o address has been

given is not the sister concern of DD Global.

23. Similar was the case with reference to the

accused nos. 2 & 3, namely, Rajesh Gupta and

Dinesh Gupta, appellants before this Court.

Their incomplete addresses have been

mentioned reflecting them to be the residents of

Sector 20, Gautam Budh Nagar. The position is

same in the case of Gulab Buildtech and Verma

Buildtech. Though the complainant had

invested crores of rupees in equity of the

aforesaid two companies based at New Delhi,

knowing well their place of business, yet in

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 19 of 33 those cases, incomplete addresses showing

them at Sector 20, Gautam Budh Nagar, was

deliberately mentioned. It is sufficiently clear

that the idea was to falsely create jurisdiction in

Gautam Budh Nagar which did not actually lie

there.

24. The falsehood in the complaint, filed with

reference to the addresses of the accused, was

established at the time of filing of charge-sheet.

Whereas in the FIR, the addresses of all the

accused given were incomplete merely

mentioning the address as ‘Sector 20, Gautam

Budh Nagar’, in the charge-sheet addresses of

not only the appellants, namely, Rajesh Gupta

and Dinesh Gupta, were found to be ‘D-393,

New Friends Colony, New Delhi, even Sushil

Gupta and Baljeet Singh were also found to be

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 20 of 33 residents of New Delhi. The following are the

addresses of the parties involved in the matter:

Sr. Party Party Address

No. Name

1. Complainant Karan N-56, Panchsheel Gambhir Park, New Delhi, 110017. 2. Supporting Sanjay N-56, Panchsheel Witness Gambhir Park, New Delhi, 110017. 3. Supporting Tarun 65/21, New Rohtak Witness Kumar Road, New Delhi- 110005 4. Complainant’s M/s DD 226, Basement Cabin Company Global Number 11, Right Capital Ltd. Side, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi, 110065. 5. Accused No. 1 Sushil D-247, IInd Floor, Gupta Defence Colony, New Delhi, 110024. 6. Accused No. 2 Rajesh 3/41, Shanti Niketan, Gupta New Delhi, 110021. 7. Accused No. 3 Dinesh B-393, New Friends Gupta Colony, New Delhi, 110014.

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 21 of 33

8. Accused No. 4 Baljeet B-363, New Friends Singh Colony, New Delhi, 110014.

9. Accused M/s Gulab 31, Jangpura Road Company Buildtech Bhogal, Northeast, (Later Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, 110014.

amalgamated in BDR Builders) 10. Accused M/s Verma R-6A, IInd Floor, Company Buildtech Green Park (Later and Extension, South amalgamated Promoters Delhi, New Delhi, in BDR Pvt. Ltd. 110016. Builders) 11. Accused M/s BDR C 43, Jangpura Company Builders Extension, New Delhi, and 110014. Developers Pvt. Ltd.

25. Though address of Karan Gambhir who was

signatory of the complaint on the basis of FIR in

question registered, was mentioned to be of

Noida, same as was given in the complaint.

However, his residential address was not given.

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 22 of 33 His parentage was also not mentioned. The

second person shown in the chargesheet is a

supporting witness, Sanjay Gambhir, who has

shown his present and permanent address of

‘P.S. Hauz Khas, N-58, Panchsheel Marg, New

Delhi’. The same is the position with reference

to Tarun Gambhir, who also is claimed to be a

supporting witness. All other witnesses were

officials who were involved in the investigation

of the case.

26. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh

Nagar, vide order dated 15.02.2021 took

cognizance thereof and issued summons to the

accused. The order shows no application of

mind, as no reasons have been assigned. The

Magistrate also did not take into consideration

the address of the complainant and the accused

companies as also the addresses of their

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 23 of 33 Directors. There was complete lack of

application of mind while taking cognizance and

issuing summons.

27. Coming to the allegation of the complainant

being misled for advancing loan, which was

later on converted into equity, the appellants

placed on record two resolutions dated

25.03.2011 and 26.08.2011 passed by the

company vide which decision was taken by the

complainant to invest in the equity of Gulab

Buildtech and Verma Buildtech to the tune of

₹5,16,00,000/- and ₹ 11,29,50,000/-

respectively. The said resolutions passed by the

complainant have not been denied. Hence, the

claim that the appellants had induced the

complainant to advance loan and later on

converted the loan into equity, is totally false. It

was rather a deliberate decision taken by the

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 24 of 33 Board founded on above-mentioned company

resolutions.

28. Further, it is apparent that the complainant had

concealed material facts which were within his

knowledge at the time of filing of complaint.

These facts pertained to the complainant’s

knowledge of the merger of Gulab Buildtech and

Verma Buildtech with BDR, details whereof are

noted hereinafter.

29. A Company Petition No.287 of 2012 was filed in

the High Court for merger of the Gulab

Buildtech and Verma Buildtech with BDR. As

required, due notice was issued to all the

concerned stake holders including all the

shareholders and creditors. The same was

published in the newspapers also. The

complainant neither raised any objection nor

appeared before the High Court. After

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 25 of 33 considering the material placed on record, the

High Court allowed the merger application on

20.02.2013, as a result of which Gulab

Buildtech and Verma Buildtech were merged

into BDR. Nearly, one year thereafter on

31.01.2014, the complainant company filed a

Company Application No. 321 of 2014 for recall

of the order dated 20.02.2013. The grievance

raised was that the order of merger was passed

without notice to the company, which held

substantial percentage of shares in both the

companies. The aforesaid application was

dismissed by the High Court vide order dated

15.03.2016. The same was not challenged by

the company any further and, hence, attained

finality.

30. It would be relevant to note that in the

application filed for recall of the merger order by

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 26 of 33 the complainant, it was nowhere mentioned

that initially the complainant had advanced

loan, which was later on converted into debt

equity. It only mentioned that the complainant

was a shareholder of the transferor company

and as a result of merger their percentage of

shareholding and value of shares decreased. It

was also nowhere pleaded in the application

that the shares held by the company were

mortgaged to Sushil Gupta by forging the

documents. The new story of forging documents

was built up in the complaint filed with the

police only to give a criminal colour which

actually was commercial in nature.

31. Not only this, despite dismissal of the

application filed by the complainant for recall of

the merger order by the High Court vide order

dated 15.03.2016, in the complaint made to the

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 27 of 33 police on 29.07.2018 i.e. more than two years

and four months later, still the complainant did

not furnish complete details thereof, especially

the filing and dismissal of the application for

recall of the merger order. Rather, it merely

stated that he got the documents from the High

Court which were filed along with the

amalgamation application and came to know

about certain facts therefrom but did not

mention about the application filed for recall of

the order of amalgamation and the result

thereof. Non-disclosure of such relevant facts

was a deliberate and mischievous attempt on

the part of the complainant to maliciously

initiate criminal proceedings for ulterior

motives.

32. Most importantly, it needs to be noticed that it

was a plain and simple transaction between the

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 28 of 33 corporates. Even as per the complainant’s case,

the short-term loan was advanced in the year

2010 for a period of one year. However, when

the same was not returned, no steps were taken

by the complainant to recover the same until the

FIR in question was registered on 29.07.2018

i.e. 8 years & 7 months later.

33. Further, the complainant came to know about

the merger of the Gulab Buildtech and Verma

Buildtech with BDR in the year 2013 itself.

However, even after dismissal of the application

filed for recall of the merger order passed by the

High Court on 15.03.2016, no steps were taken

to recover the amount, except getting the FIR

registered more than two years later. All these

facts clearly reflect upon the ill designs of the

complainant.

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 29 of 33

34. The entire factual matrix and the time lines

clearly reflects that the complainant deliberately

and unnecessarily has caused substantial delay

and had been waiting for opportune moment for

initiating false and frivolous litigation.

35. Further, it has been noticed by the High Court

in the impugned order that on an application

filed by the appellants, an Arbitrator was

appointed by the Delhi High Court vide order

dated 15.05.2019 to settle the dispute amongst

the parties and the said matter was still

pending.

36. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that

the FIR in question, if proceeded further, will

result in absolute abuse of process of court. It

is a clear case of malicious prosecution. Hence,

the same is required to be quashed.

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 30 of 33

37. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The

impugned order passed by the High Court is set

aside. FIR No.1271 of 2018 dated 29.07.2018

registered with Gautam Budh Nagar Police

Station, Noida, and all subsequent proceedings

thereof qua the appellants are quashed.

38. Before parting with the judgement, we are

reminded of the opening remarks. The

respondent Karan Gambhir having misused the

legal system by lodging false and frivolous

complaint with non-disclosure of necessary

facts must bear its costs. The registration of FIR

at Noida despite having registered offices of

companies in question at Delhi shows a wishful

forum shopping by the Complainant, casting

serious doubts on their bona fides. The

Complainant had already sought remedy

against amalgamation order before the High

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 31 of 33 Court and the High Court had dismissed the

same. However, Complainant chose to again use

judicial mechanisms to raise his grievances. A

criminal complaint was filed and FIR was

registered against appellants despite the

commercial nature of dispute. Such ill intended

acts of abuse of power and of legal machinery

seriously affect the public trust in judicial

functioning. Thus, we find ourselves

constrained to impose cost on Complainant with

a view to curb others from such acts leading to

abuse of judicial remedies.

39. Considering the above facts and circumstances

of the case, we impose costs of ₹25 lakhs on the

respondent Karan Gambhir to be deposited

within four weeks from today with the Registry

of this Court. Upon receipt of the said amount,

the same will be transmitted in equal amount to

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 32 of 33 the SCBA & SCAORA to be utilised for the

development and benefit of their members.

……………………………………J. (VIKRAM NATH)

……………………………………J. (RAJESH BINDAL) NEW DELHI JANUARY 11, 2024

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022 etc. Page 33 of 33