A Delhi court has directed registration of FIR against two directors of a city-based air charter service company for allegedly failing to provide helicopter service to a man despite receipt of money, noting that the duo had an “intention to cheat”.

 Additional Sessions Judge Anuj Agrawal passed the order on the revision petition filed by complainant Anis Ahmad against the magistrate’s order rejecting his plea seeking registration of FIR against the duo and an employee for not providing the helicopter for his niece’s wedding after taking the payment of Rs five lakh in March 2019.

The complainant alleged that the director did not return the paid amount after cancelling the service and stopped taking his calls, following which he came to know that they have closed the office.

 He further said that one of the accused also threatened him. He filed two complaints at Jamia Nagar Police Station and with the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) in September and October 2019 but no action was taken.

 Police later told the court that the dispute was civil and there was no inducement or cheating.  Allowing the revision petition, the Additional Sessions Judge said, “It appears that respondent No.1 and 2 being Directors were having an intention to cheat the revisionist (Ahmad) since the beginning as they did not come up with an explanation as to why no services were provided to revisionist despite receipt of the amount.”

Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that they had requisite permission from the Competent Authority to provide the helicopter services to the complainant at the relevant time as promised, the judge noted.

“Investigation by police would be required for recovery of the cheated amount, for ascertaining if the respondent had requisite permission to provide the services as promised by them and for effective investigation,” he stated.

The judge added, “Present revision petition stands allowed. The impugned order stands set aside. Magistrate is accordingly requested to direct the concerned SHO to register an FIR under appropriate provisions of law against respondent No.1 and 2 being Directors.”The court, however, said that no criminal liability can be attributed to the employee of the charter service company as he was cheated by the directors and not paid salary from the last six months.  The judge directed the police to probe this as well.