Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
Ram Dilawri & Another – Petitioners
Versus
State (Government of NCT of Delhi) & Another – Respondents
Crl. M.C. No. 3115 of 2011
Decided On : 29.6.2015
Cheating - Criminal Revision - Sections 420/120B IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 420, IPC Section 120B, Cr. P.C. Section 482 - The court discussed the allegations of cheating under Section 420/120B IPC, the legal requirements for establishing the offence of cheating, and the distinction between civil and criminal wrongs. The court highlighted the need for a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making a promise or representation for the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC. The court also emphasized the importance of a civil remedy for disputes of a civil nature and the potential abuse of the criminal process. The judgment focused on the abuse of process of law, the perversity of the impugned order, and the quashing of the FIR under Sections 420/120-B IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of cheating under Section 420/120B IPC based on a complaint regarding a property transaction. The petitioners argued that the dispute was purely civil in nature and that the complainant failed to fulfill his obligations. The court considered the allegations, the conduct of the parties, and the pending civil suit in reaching its decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offences would be a clear abuse of the process of law. The court quashed the FIR under Sections 420/120-B IPC, emphasizing the distinction between civil and criminal wrongs and the need for a fraudulent or dishonest intention for the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC.
Issues: The issues involved allegations of cheating under Section 420/120B IPC, the distinction between civil and criminal wrongs, and the abuse of the criminal process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making a promise or representation for the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC. The judgment focused on the abuse of process of law, the perversity of the impugned order, and the quashing of the FIR under Sections 420/120-B IPC.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR under Sections 420/120-B IPC and directed the parties to bear their own costs.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for setting aside the order dated 11th July, 2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-03, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi, whereby the criminal revision of the respondent was allowed and the petitioners were asked to face the trial in the matter.
2. FIR No. 517 of 2006 in the present case was registered under Sections 420/120B IPC on the complaint of Sh P.K. Jolly/respondent No. 2 against the petitioner No. 1 being the Directors of M/s. Hari Steel and General Industries represented to the complainant/ respondent No. 2 that he is the owner of property No. A-22, Mohan Co-operative, Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi. Respondent No. 2 complainant agreed to purchase the half of their property for a sum of Rs. 22 crores and part payment of Rs. 4 crores was paid at the time of execution of Memorandum of Understanding dated 24th May, 2003. There were allegations in the complaint that the petitioners were unable to complete the formalities. The petitioners thereafter returned back the part payment of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- and a sum of Rs. 2.90 crores was retained by them for getting the formalities completed at their end. It was further alleged in the complaint that petitioners had agreed to stop the misuser of property and get the property cleared from MCD dues as well as DDA. But they did not take any steps to transfer the property in his name. The complainant/respondent No. 2 further alleged that he came to know in the meanwhile that petitioners have agreed to sell the aforesaid property to Sarvjeet Singh and Daljeet Singh.
3. The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail in the aforesaid FIR by this Court on 20th December, 2006 and at the time of grant of anticipatory bail, this Court directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 3 crores with the Registrar General of this Court in order to show his bonafides, which was subsequently deposited.
4. The petitioners also filed a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of the FIR No. 517 of 2006 registered at P.S. Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, which was withdrawn on 12th February, 2009 with the liberty to file fresh petition, after framing of charge if any.
5. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 21st July, 2010 discharged the petitioners holding that no case was made out against the petitioners. However, against the discharge order dated 21st July, 2010, the State (not the complainant) preferred a revision petition bearing No. 28 of 2010 before the Session Court. The Additional Sessions Judge vide its order dated 11th July, 2011 allowed the revision petition holding that an offence under Section 420/120-B IPC is made out and directed the petitioners to face the trial. Aggrieved by the order dated 11th July, 2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioners preferred the present petition before this Court.
6. Case of the petitioners
(i) The allegations in the complaint that the petitioners cheated with respondent No. 2 by entering into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 24th May, 2003. The petitioner No. 1 being a director of the company M/s Hari Steel and General Industries Ltd. entered into MOU with respondent No. 2 complainant in respect to the property bearing No. A-22, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi for sale of the property for a total consideration of Rs. 22 crores out of which a sum of Rs. 4 crore was paid by the respondent No. 2 complainant as earnest money and balance payment was to be made after certain formalities to be completed.
(ii) However, the respondent No. 2 complainant committed breach of some terms and conditions of the agreement and did not come forward to fulfill his part and obligation of the agreement within time therefore, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and the same automatically stood cancelled. It is admitted that the respondent No. 2 complainant had received Rs. 1
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
