The main legal point established in the judgment is that even in cases of breach of contract, the remedy under criminal law is not barred if the allegations disclose a criminal offence.

Mukta Gupta, J.

By this petition the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 18/2017 under Sections 406/420/120B IPC registered at PS Rajouri Garden on the complaint of respondent No.2 and the proceedings pursuant thereto on merits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on the basis of FIR in question no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner and mere words of the complainant cannot be a ground for filing the charge-sheet to proceed against the petitioner for trial.

3. The allegations of the complainant in the above-noted FIR are that he came in contact with the petitioner No.1 and his two sons who are the petitioners No.2 and 3 in the present petition. The petitioners claimed that they had a flourishing business of finances and it would be thus safe to invest money and assured of heavy returns. Allured by the promises of the petitioners and their persistently asking the complainant to invest in their scheme, the complainant decided to join a Committee run by the petitioner comprising of 12 members in which each member had to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs per month for one year. On the request of the petitioners the complainant was to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh immediately and Rs.56,584/- was to be paid within two days at his residence. Thus, Rs.1,56,584/- was collected by the petitioner from his residence on 11th August, 2015. Thereafter every month either of the petitioners used to inform the complainant telephonically about the Committee auction and amount payable and collect the same from his residence from time to time.

4. After 7 months when the complainant had already paid a sum of Rs.14 lakhs the complainant informed that he intended to pick up the next Committee of Rs.24 lakhs as he was in dire need of money. However, the petitioner No.1 represented that the same would cause a huge loss to him and thus the complainant should not pick up the next Committee. Instead the complainant was asked to wait and invest in the second Committee. Even the second committee was not auctioned and the petitioner No.1 decided that the entire amount will be kept as guarantee. When the petitioners were unable to pay back the money, they offered him their properties at Chander Vihar and Rajouri Garden in lieu of the money given of which the complainant has a mobile phone recording. The complainant thus asked for the property papers so as to ascertain proper valuation of the properties in question, however the petitioner No.1 continued delaying the same on one pretext or the other. Later when the complainant demanded the money, petitioner started threatening him of life and dire consequences and it is alleged that till date despite the petitioner having invested a total sum of Rs.14 lakhs not one rupee has been paid back to him. The complainant has given the break-up of the money given on various dates in the FIR in question.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that allegations against the petitioner are just oral and are not backed by any documentary evidence as against which the petitioner has filed his bank statements wherein on 25th January, 2016 a sum of Rs.24 lakhs have been transacted in favour of the complainant from the account of M/s. Guru Kripa Auto Motors and a sum of Rs.18 lakhs deposited in the account of M/s. Guru Kripa Auto Motors on 11th February, 2016. Petitioner claims that if sum of Rs.14 lakhs was due there was no way that the complainant would return a sum of Rs.24 lakhs.

6. Case of the complainant is that this transaction is different whereas petitioner claims that the same is part of the transaction.

7. After investigation Police has already filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners and from the allegations as mentioned in the FIR it cannot be held that commission of no cognizable offence is made out. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that investigating officer was lax in not taking the voice samples of the petitioner and not getting it examined from the FSL which would have p