A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) M/s. Hemraj Hospitals Ltd. as plaintiff filed the instant suit for specific performance against defendant Sh. Varun Vasudeva on the basis of Agreement to Sell dated 14th August 1994 as per which, defendant agreed to sell his property bearing No. C-203, Greater Kailash part I, New Delhi, to the plaintiff company for a consideration of Rs. 43 lakhs. Mrs. Meera ahuja was the Managing Director of the plaintiff company at that time. First floor portion of the property was already under the tenancy of Ms. Meera Ahuja at the time of entering into the aforesaid Agreement to Sell. Other portions were under the tenancy of some other tenants. During the pendency of this suit application under Order I Rule 10 of the code of Civil Procedure (IA No. 6999/2002) was filed by Sh. Vinod Vasudeva and Smt. Veena Kumar stating that they were the legal owners of the said property as the property was in the name of Sh. Jagdish N. Vasudeva and on his death it was inherited by them. It was also stated that the defendant Varun vasudeva had entered into Agreement to Sell dated 14th August 1994 with the plaintiff and the applicants had entered into settlement with the plaintiff whereby they had agreed to execute the sale deed in respect of this property in favour of the plaintiff to honour the said Agreement to Sell entered into by sh. Varun Vasudeva. They were allowed to be impleaded as parties. The Court also passed decree dated 9th August 2002 in terms of settlement between the parties on application (IA No. 6998/2002) filed by the parties under Order 23 Rules 1. and 3 of the code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, directing that in view of settlement of the parties and also the facts disclosed in the application, decree in terms of tripartite agreement dated 3rd July 2002 be passed. As per this agreement, sale deed is executed in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff s suit is decreed. There may not be any quarrel up to this stage as the plaintiff got the relief which it wanted. ( 2 ) HOWEVER, what is significant is that on behalf of the plaintiff company, the agreement was entered into by Sh. Ashok Kumar. Pahuja stating to be Managing Director of the company. Thus, plaintiff s suit is decreed. There may not be any quarrel up to this stage as the plaintiff got the relief which it wanted. ( 2 ) HOWEVER, what is significant is that on behalf of the plaintiff company, the agreement was entered into by Sh. Ashok Kumar. Pahuja stating to be Managing Director of the company. According to him, he had purchased the shares of the company held by Mrs. Meera Ahuja etc. ( 3 ) PRESENT application is filed by Mrs. Meera ahuja for setting aside this decree, inter alia, alleging that sometime in March 1994 she met with serious accident and was confined to bed for almost a year. As she could not arrange for funds to pay the balance purchase price in respect of the suit property, she entered into an agreement with Mr. Ashok kumar Pahuja for transfer of entire shareholding in the company with its assets and liabliities to said Ashok Kumar Pahuja for a sum of Rs. 95 lakhs out of which a sum of rs. 27 lakhs was to be paid to the defendant. A sum of Rs. 16 lakhs was paid by Sh. Ashok kumar Pahuja at the time of the agreement and aforesaid Rs. 27 lakhs was to be paid after receiving consideration of Rs. 95 lakhs. It is alleged that Sh. Ashok Kumar Pahuja did not pay the balance consideration in respect of shares nor he ever came to retrieve the shares from Mrs. Meera Ahuja which is still in her possession. However, he entered into a criminal conspiracy with Dr. Naresh jain, another Director of the plaintiff company and forged and fabricated the shares of the directors held in the plaintiff company and on the basis of said shares he alleged that he had acquired the entire shareholding of the plaintiff company and had become the Managing director of the company and on this basis he entered into agreement with the defendant and filed application under Order 23 Rules 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to Mrs. Meera Ahuja, at no time any single share of the company had been transferred in favour of Sh. Ashok Kumar pahuja. Therefore, it is alleged that Dr. Naresh jain as well as Sh. According to Mrs. Meera Ahuja, at no time any single share of the company had been transferred in favour of Sh. Ashok Kumar pahuja. Therefore, it is alleged that Dr. Naresh jain as well as Sh. Ashok Kumar Pahuja had not only played fraud oh the plaintiff company but on the court as well and in these circumstances, it is prayed that decree be set aside as nullity and suit restored to its original position. It may be mentioned that Mrs. Meera ahuja also lodged FIR against Dr. Naresh Jain and Sh. Ashok Kumar Pahuja with the Police station Greater Kailash, New Delhi being FIR no. 233/2001 dated 24th August 2001. Therefore, when the arguments were heard in this case it was deemed proper that record of the said FIR, which is pending in the Court of Sh. B. K. Garg, Metropolitan Magistrate, patiala House Courts, New Delhi, be summoned. It became necessary as police has investigated into the same allegations made by Mrs. Meera Ahuja and it was informed that police had completed the investigation and filed challan before the Court. This record was received only in the last week of december 2005. On going through the record it transpires that after receiving the investigation report/challan learned metropolitan Magistrate has yet to take cognizance of this report. The case was lastly fixed before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 14th December 2005 when complainant sought time to go through the charge-sheet filed by the I. O. ( 4 ) THE charge-sheet filed reveals, inter alia, the following information:-"in the financial year 1995-96 Sh. G. B. Jain, Naresh Jain, manish Jain and Dinesh jain resigned from Directorship of M/s. Hemraj Hospitals Ltd. 26-8-95 whereas gaurav Ahuja and Usha Sharma were appointed Directors in the company as per form 32 filed with the R. O. C. Investigation further revealed that as per allegations of Complainant Smt. Meera Ahuja, during the year 1997-98, she had deposited the amount of Rs. 27 lacs in the account of M/s. Hemraj hospitals Ltd. through Dr. Naresh Jain for the purpose of paying the said amount to Sh. Varun Vasudeva at the time of execution of documeths of C-203, g. K.-I, N. Delhi. But later on she came to know that the amount had been diverted illegally by said Dr. 27 lacs in the account of M/s. Hemraj hospitals Ltd. through Dr. Naresh Jain for the purpose of paying the said amount to Sh. Varun Vasudeva at the time of execution of documeths of C-203, g. K.-I, N. Delhi. But later on she came to know that the amount had been diverted illegally by said Dr. Naresh jain without her knowledge and as such she could not honour the agreement for sale entered into with Sh. Varun vasudeva and consequently upon Sh. Varun Vasudeva did not perform his part of the agreement. A suit vide no. 1770/97 was instituted in the Hon ble High Court of Delhi for specific performance by the company. She further alleged that at this stage Ashok kumar Pahuja came into picture with the proposal to purchase the property of the company. Ashok Pahuja offered for purchasing the entire company along with the responsibility of the suit pending in the High Court. Complainant Smt. Meera Ahuja received Rs. 18 Lacs towards part payment of the total consideration through bank drafts and agreed that she would transfer her whole shareholding to Ashok Kumar pahuja after completion of transaction and receiving of total amount. Ashok kumar Pahuja replaced Smt. Meera ahuja as a party in the civil suit for specific performance in the High Court of Delhi by way of filing form 32 showing smt. Meera Ahuja has resigned from directorship and his appointment as director in the company. During the financial year 1998-1999 the alleged shares certificates of Smt. Meera ahuja were transferred in the name of the Ashok Pahuja and Sarita Pahuja on 5-5-98 as per the copies of the shares certificates provided by Ashok Pahuja and on the same day Sonali Pahuja was appointed Director in the company whereas Usha Sharma, Gaurav Ahuja and Pratibha Sharma resigned from directorship. Smt. Meera Ahuja resigned from the company on 6-5-98 as per the form 32 filed under the signature of Ashok Pahuja. During the investigation in DIU, the only available admissible evidence i. e. , original form 32 seized from ROC and original share certificates seized from smt. Meera Ahuja were sent to GEQD, shimla for comparison with respective specimen and admitted signatures. As per the opinion of the handwriting expert of GEQD Shimla the signature on the original form 32 purportedly of complainant Smt. Meera Ahuja were forged and the signature of Dr. Meera Ahuja were sent to GEQD, shimla for comparison with respective specimen and admitted signatures. As per the opinion of the handwriting expert of GEQD Shimla the signature on the original form 32 purportedly of complainant Smt. Meera Ahuja were forged and the signature of Dr. Naresh jain on all the original share certificate seized from the complainant were found to be genuine. Dr. Naresh Jain produced the counterfoils of the share certifictes issued to Smt. Meera Ahuja and claimed that these counterfoils remained with him after handing over the share certificates to smt. Meera Ahuja. On further examination Smt. Meera Ahuja stated that the original counterfoils and alleged receipts of documents of the company produced by Dr. Naresh jain bears her forged signatures. On confronting Dr. Naresh jain with the opinion of the handwriting expert regarding his signature available on the share certificates produced by the complainant smt. Meera Ahuja, he neither could deny nor explain his signatures on the share certificates seized from complainant. Both Dr. Naresh Jain and Ashok Pahuja were arrested in this case on 20-01-04 and produced in the Hon ble Court where Ashok Pahuja produced the original share certificate and their transfer deeds which were seized in the court with the permission of the learned MM. During investigation, Ashok Kumar pahuja mentioned in Col. No. 2, handed over original resignation letter of Smt. Meera Ahuja, letter of handing over of all documents of the employee by Smt. Meera Ahuja, letter of donation of all the belongings of Smt. Meera Ahuja kept in property C-203, Greater Kailash- i, minutes book of M/s. Hemraj Hospital ltd. , 2 receipts of Rs. 18 Lacs paid by ashok Kumar Pahuja were produced during the pendency of petition in sessions court filed by complainant for cancellation of bail of Ashok Kumar pahuja and Dr. . Naresh Jain. During investigation, all the original documents seized after the arrest of ashok Kumar Pahuja and produced by dr. Naresh Jain were again sent to geqd, Shimla for examination whereas the report of the examination was against the allegations of the complainant Smt. Meera Ahuja as handwriting expert opined that all the allegedly forged signatures are of Smt. Meera Ahuja. Hence report of handwriting expert negates the allegation of complainant Smt. Meera ahuja against Ashok Kr. Pahuja because question signatures appearing on documents i. e. original resignation letter of smt. Hence report of handwriting expert negates the allegation of complainant Smt. Meera ahuja against Ashok Kr. Pahuja because question signatures appearing on documents i. e. original resignation letter of smt. Meera Ahuja, letter of handing over of all documents of the employees by Smt. Meera Ahuja, letter of donation of all the belongings of Smt. Meera ahuja kept in property C-203, Greater kailash-I, minutes book of M/s. Hemraj hospitals Ltd. , 2 receipts of Rs. 18 Lacs paid are of Smt. Meera Ahuja and her signatures are genuine. During investigation it was also revealed that ashok Kr. Pahuja settled the matter with Sh. Varun/vinod Vasudeva by paying him Rs. 27 Lacs in the Hon ble high Court of Delhi and got the premises no. C-203, GK-I, Delhi registered in his name. So, it is evident that there are not sufficient evidence to challan accused Ashok Kr. Pahuja, hence his name is being kept in Col. No. 2. In, hon ble Court may deem fit, he may be summoned. Investigation conducted revealed that accused Dr. Naresh Jain mentioned in cot. No. 4, prepared forged documents i. e. two set of share certificates bearing his signatures and also siphoned off the fund which was to be used for the hemraj Hospital and converted the same for his own personal use threby caused wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to himself and cheated the complainant to the tune more 55 lacs. Accused mentioned in Col. No. 4 was arrested and he is on court bail. Hence sufficient evidence are on file to chargesheet the accused Dr. Naresh jain mentioned in Col. no. 4 u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC. In view of the above facts and circumstances, sufficient oral and documentary evidence has come on record to establish the offences u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC against the accused Dr. Naresh Jain. Hence this final report u/s 173 Cr. P. C has been prepared, it is therefore, respectfully prayed that cognizance against the accused person may kindly be taken and try him according to law. " ( 5 ) FOLLOWING things emerge from the aforesaid investigation :-A) As per Mrs. Meera Ahuja s own showing she entered into agreement with Ashok Kumar Pahuja whereby she agreed to transfer the entire shareholding of the company to Ashok kumar Pahuja. B) Form 32 filed with the ROC regarding resignation of Directorship of Mrs. Meera ahuja contained signatures of Mrs. Meera Ahuja s own showing she entered into agreement with Ashok Kumar Pahuja whereby she agreed to transfer the entire shareholding of the company to Ashok kumar Pahuja. B) Form 32 filed with the ROC regarding resignation of Directorship of Mrs. Meera ahuja contained signatures of Mrs. Meera Ahuja. C) Resignation letter of Smt. Meera ahuja, letter of handing over of all documents of employee of Smt. Meera ahuja to Ashok Kumar Pahuja, minute book of the company, two receipts of rs. 18 lacs issued by Smt. Meera Ahuja are genuine documents and signatures on these documents are that of Smt. Meera Ahuja. Her allegation that these documents contain forged signatures is negatived by GEQD, Shimla where these documents were sent for examination. D) As per the I. O. , therefore, while no case is made out against Sh. Ashok kumar Pahuja, investigation against Dr. Naresh Jain establishes the offence under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC. In view of the aforesaid position, since agreement entered into by Mrs. Meera Ahuja with Mr. Ashok Kumar Pahuja is established as per which she had agreed to transfer entire shareholding of the company to Mr. Ashok Kumar Pahuja and also she filed form 32 under her signatures in so far as dispute raised in this application, is concerned, the same is clearly misconceived. If Dr. Naresh jain had committed certain illegal acts or any offence under Section 420,467,468 and 471 ipc is prima facie established against him which includes siphoning off the funds etc. Mrs. Meera Ahuja shall have right to make claims against Dr. Naresh Jain in this behalf. On the basis of the report filed by the investigating officer, matter is pending before the competent court of Metropolitan Magistrate. As far as present application is concerned, in view of the aforesaid report based on the hand writing expert of GEQD, Simla, I do not find any merit in this application which is dismissed. With this order las No. 472/04 and 1037/04 do not survive and they are also disposed of.