Back
Trust No Substitute for Proof: Delhi HC Rejects ₹4 Crore Cheating Claim Over Shaky Cash Trail
In a stark reminder that even longstanding business ties don't excuse the absence of solid evidence in high-stakes deals, the has dismissed a petition seeking to revive a criminal complaint alleging fraud in a property transaction. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld lower courts' refusal to summon respondents, stressing that massive cash payments demand more than mere assurances of trust.
From Deal Promise to Courtroom Dead-End
The saga began in when N.G. Dev, a self-described experienced realtor from Nirman Vihar, Delhi, claimed respondents Sanjay Garg, Gurcharan Singh alias Raju, and Rinku approached him to buy property A-14 (or P-14), Swasthya Vihar, for ₹6 crore. Citing impending price surges from the Commonwealth Games, they allegedly convinced Dev to pay a ₹4.39 crore cash "bayana" upfront, promising the balance via cheque at sale deed execution.
Dev detailed six cash payments between and , supported by plain-paper receipts and witness statements from himself and manager Ravinder Biswas. No memorandum of understanding (MOU) or agreement to sell was signed, despite his requests—attributed to four years of prior dealings where respondents witnessed his sale deeds. When the deal fizzled, Dev filed a private complaint in under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 120B (conspiracy), and 34 (common intention) IPC.
The dismissed it in for lack of proof on fund sourcing and payment links. The affirmed this in , flagging improbabilities like no owner involvement (Naresh Bansal), cash-only mode amid loan claims via Dev's companies, receipt discrepancies (cuttings, no property mention), and a two-year delay before complaining to the .
Dev then petitioned under , invoking , arguing overlooked evidence and Supreme Court precedents on cheating.
Petitioner's Plea: Trust and Timelines Overlooked
Dev, represented by and , urged re-appreciation of : eight witnesses, including his testimony and Biswas's on site visits; receipts proved payments; prior witness roles showed affinity justifying informality; EoW status report noted respondent admissions; and even courts' "" remark implied money changed hands.
He contested logic flaws—no MOU because of trust; loans pre-dated assurances logically; property verified collectively; respondents unauthorized yet conniving from the start, inducing loans. Dismissing as second revision was unfair, he said, as Section 482 prevents injustice.
Respondents' Defense: Fiction Over Fact
Sanjay Garg and Gurcharan/Rinku, via , countered that two courts concurrently found no : no sale agreement, no owner ties, implausible ₹4+ crore cash sans verification (Dev, a realtor, never met owner); company loans misused personally; unstamped, interpolated receipts irrelevant to property; EoW cleared after probe.
They invoked Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749, where magistrates scrutinize actively. Noting Dev's similar loan for another property under scrutiny, they called the tale unbelievable—cash screams tax evasion, not crediting fraud.
Judicial Scrutiny: No Paper Trail, No Case
Justice Krishna first nixed maintainability: the petition rehashed revision grounds, unfit for under , reserved for grave abuse or justice ends. On merits, she endorsed lower courts: incomprehensible deal sans owner, documents, or MOU; unproven company loans withdrawn as cash; receipts plain, unlinked to property.
Long ties? Irrelevant without corroboration. As other reports noted, Dev bypassed banks despite loans, fueling "" doubts courts rightly flagged. No cheating prima facie—respondents weren't sellers; payments untraced.
Key Observations
“No matter how close a relationship of trust between the Petitioner and the Respondents may have been, when it comes to the money transactions, it has to be corroborated by some .”
“It is absolutely incomprehensible how a transaction of sale can be said to have been entered into without dealing with the owner or even without looking at the property documents or executing some document in proof thereof.”
“The Receipts on which reliance has been placed by the Petitioner had been rightly rejected by observing that they had been executed on plain paper and there was nothing to show that they pertained to the present transaction.”
“The Court cannot entertain claims regarding .”
Final Verdict: Petition Dismissed, Bar Set High
Dismissing CRL.M.C. 1236/2017 on : “There is no merit in the present Petition, which is hereby dismissed.”
This reinforces evidentiary rigor in cheating/breach claims, especially cash-heavy property plays. Future litigants must furnish ironclad documents—not just trust tales—or risk dismissal. For realtors and investors, a cue: verify owners, formalize via MoUs, bank everything. Respondents breathe easy; Dev's quest ends here.
Case:
