The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of fraud and criminal misrepresentation under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code in the context of a partnership agreement, and the court's direction to re-examine the allegations to determine the commission of these offences.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 12.03.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - 02, East District, Karkardooma Courts, in Crl. Rev. Petition No.177/2019.

2. The learned Additional Session Judge by the order impugned herein has allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent No.2 herein by setting aside the order dated 12.07.2017 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, and has directed the Trial Court to frame charges against the petitioners herein for offences under Sections 420/468/471 of the IPC and proceed further as per law.

3. Shorn of details, facts leading to the present petition are as under:

a) FIR No.632/2013 was registered at Police Station Kalyan Puri for offences under Sections 420/468/471/34 IPC on the complaint of respondent No.2 herein. It is alleged in the complaint that in September, 2010 the petitioner herein introduced himself to the complainant as the owner of M/s Shivan Auto Centre and Petrol Pump of Indian Oil Corporation situated at NH 24, Mayur Vihar, Phase II, Delhi. It is stated that the petitioner No.1 lured the complainant for 50% partnership in the said petrol pump and asked for Rs.3.75 crores for the partnership and also signed a tripartite agreement (MOU) with him and agreed to replace one Sukhpal, who was earlier partner in the petrol pump. It is stated that the complainant paid Rs.52 lakhs in cash and Rs.31.50 lakhs through RTGS and NEFT on various dates. It is stated that later on the complainant came to know that the petitioner No.1 herein was not the owner of the petrol pump. It is stated that the petitioner No.2 was the real proprietor of the said petrol pump. It is stated that the complainant asked petitioner No.1 to return his Rs.83.50 lakh. It is stated that the petitioner No.1 assured the complainant that he would return the amount but he did not return even a single rupee.

b) During investigation it was revealed from the record of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. that the petitioner No.2 herein was the dealer/owner of M/s Shivan Auto Centre. It was also found that Rs.31.5 Lakhs were transferred in the account of M/s Shivan Petrol Pump. It is stated that the complainant also produced one receipt of Rs.22.95 Lakhs given in cash to the petitioner No.1 herein.

c) During investigation, petitioner No.1 produced a GPA executed between him and petitioner No.2 in the year 1994, whereby petitioner No.1 was authorised for maintenance, promotion of sale and for entering into any agreement on behalf of petitioner No.2 qua the petrol pump in question. On investigation from Indian Oil Corporation it was revealed that as per the guidelines formed by Indian Oil Corporation, no retail outlet dealer was empowered to authorise any other person on his behalf for maintenance, operating or any other purpose in respect of the petrol pump. Investigation reveals that information was given to the Indian Oil Corporation that petitioner No.1 was managing the petrol pump. Material on record reveals that the specimen writing/signature of petitioner No.1 have been sent to FSL for comparison with MOU as well as the receipt.

d) Charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners.

e) The petitioner No.1 was granted anticipatory bail and he was formally arrested and released on personal bonds. Petitioner No.2 was not arrested.

f) The arguments were heard on point of charge. The complainant/respondent No.2 contended that the petitioners are cousins. It was contended by the complainant that the petitioner No.1 represented himself to be the owner of the petrol pump and induced the complainant to enter into MOU with him and transfer a sum of Rs.83.5 Lakhs to him. It was contended by the complainant that the GPA which has been produced by the petitioner No.1 was later on fabricated by the petitioners in order to save themselves from criminal prosecution. It was stated by the complainant that the dealership agreement does not giv