The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised to prevent an abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice, and the decision to quash a complaint or FIR should be based on the facts and circumstances of each case, with due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.

JUDGMENT :

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.

W.P. (Crl.) No. 2426/2019 and Crl. M.A. No. 34702/2019 (for stay)

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 22/2019 under Sections 420/406/468/471/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.01.2019, on the complaint of respondent no. 2 the FIR in question was registered pursuant to the order passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate on the application of respondent no. 2 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In the complaint filed by respondent no. 2 it is alleged that in the year 2013 Rajesh Goyal, father of the petitioner induced him to purchase the upper ground floor of property bearing No. B-1498/1, Shastri Nagar, Delhi, claiming himself to be the owner of the same. He further stated that Rajesh Goyal represented him that the said property is free from all sorts of encumbrances, disputes, litigation, lien, mortgage, etc. Believing the version of the father of the petitioner, petitioner agreed to purchase the aforesaid property and the deal was finalized for a sum of Rs. 61,00,000/- out of which he paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as bayana and in this regard father of the petitioner executed a banaya receipt dated 10.07.2013. The complainant further stated that it was agreed between the parties that the remaining amount of Rs. 56,00,000/- will be paid at the time of the execution of the documents by the father of the petitioner which were to be executed on or before 17.06.2014. The complainant further stated that thereafter he paid another sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the father of the petitioner and he was handed over the possession of the aforesaid property to him. He further stated that thereafter when he asked the father of the petitioner to execute the documents and accept the balance amount, he lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and when he made enquiries he came to know that the father of the petitioner was not the owner of the said property on the date of the execution of the bayana receipt, and he also came to know that civil litigation qua the property was pending and the property was booked by MCD for demolition due to unauthorized construction. The complainant further stated that when he demanded back his money, the petitioner and his father Rajesh Goyal threatened him.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ASC for the State, and have also perused the status report filed on behalf of the State.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated because his father has entered into some agreements to sell with the complainant and in order to pressurize his father to arrive at a compromise the petitioner has also been named. He further submits that in the initial complaint which was filed by respondent no. 2, there are no allegations against the petitioner and on the basis of this complaint no FIR was registered, so respondent no. 2 filed a complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and it was then that for the first time complainant named the petitioner in the said complaint. He further submits that there are no allegations against the petitioner in the complaint filed by respondent no. 2 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. He further submits that no document has been signed or executed by the petitioner and even otherwise there are no allegations that at the time of execution of any of the documents the petitioner was present along with his father.

5. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that the allegations are grave and serious in nature and the petitioner had accompanied his father to the house of respondent no. 2 on 01.08.2017 along with some police officials and threatened him to vacate the premises.

6. I have perused the status report filed by the State. In the said status report it has been mentioned to be as correct that the petitione