Delhi High Court on Summoning Order in Cheating and Breach of Trust Case.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition challenging the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order summoning the petitioners for offences under Sections 406, 408, and 420 IPC. The Court held that:

1. Part of the alleged offence occurred within India, including the execution and misuse of blank cheques, making Section 188 Cr.P.C. inapplicable.
2. The complainant’s testimony and documentary evidence, including Powers of Attorney and share transfer documents, prima facie disclosed offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating.
3. The petitioners’ arguments regarding lack of jurisdiction, delayed complaint, and absence of prima facie evidence were rejected.

1. The complainant, Gurvinder Dhodi, an NRI businessman in Sharjah, UAE, alleged that he handed over his business management, finances, and documents to his nephew, petitioner No. 1, via Power of Attorney after being deported from UAE in 2007.
2. The petitioners, along with other relatives, allegedly misused the Power of Attorney, transferred company assets in their own names, and diverted funds.
3. The Metropolitan Magistrate summoned the petitioners for offences under Sections 120B, 406, 408, and 420 IPC.
4. The petitioners challenged the summoning order under Sections 482/483 Cr.P.C., claiming lack of jurisdiction, absence of prima facie evidence, and delay in filing the complaint.

1. Jurisdiction (Section 188 Cr.P.C.): Section 188 applies only if the entire offence is committed outside India. Here, part of the alleged offence occurred in India (signing blank cheques), so Indian courts had territorial jurisdiction without requiring prior Central Government sanction.
2. Prima Facie Case: The complainant’s testimony, supported by employment records, Powers of Attorney, and share transfer documents, indicated misuse of authority by the petitioners, resulting in financial gain and breach of trust.
3. Evidence Corroboration: The complainant established prima facie that the petitioners transferred company shares and diverted Rs. 47 lakhs from Sharjah Cold Store into petitioner No. 2’s account.
4. Delay in Complaint: While the petitioners raised delay in filing the complaint, the Court noted that the allegations regarding misuse of Power of Attorney and funds were substantial and not barred merely by passage of time.
5. Civil Proceedings: The pendency of civil suits and prior UAE proceedings did not preclude Indian courts from taking cognizance of offences partially committed in India.

1. Sections 406, 408 IPC – Criminal breach of trust.
2. Section 420 IPC – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
3. Section 120B IPC – Criminal conspiracy.
4. Section 188 Cr.P.C. – Offences committed outside India.
5. Sections 482/483 Cr.P.C. – Power of High Court to quash proceedings.

1. The High Court found no infirmity in the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order summoning the petitioners.
2. The petition challenging the summoning order was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

Citation: 2025:DEL:CRL.M.C.2719/2017

Case: Simardeep Singh Arora & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Gurvinder Dhodi

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Date of Decision: 11 November 2025

Crl. M.C. / Applications: Crl.M.C. 2719/2017, Crl.M.A. 11257/2017, Crl.M.A. 48249/2018 & Crl.M.A. 5152/2022