IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of determining the jurisdiction for inquiry and trial of an offence based on the location of the primary consequence of the alleged acts, as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

CRL.M.A. 7736/2024 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CRL.M.C. 2005/2024 & CRL.M.A. 7737/2024

2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, `Cr.P.C.') praying for quashing of FIR No.0003/2024 registered at Police Station: Badarpur, South-East District, Delhi under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, `IPC'), along with all other proceedings arising therefrom.

3. The above FIR has been registered on a complaint filed by the respondent no.2 alleging that, in the year 1998, the husband of the Complainant met inter alia the petitioner herein. One of the co- accused, that is, Mr.Shri Kant Verma, informed the husband of the Complainant that he is a resident of Dehradun and there, he deals in properties under the name and style of Promila Promoters and Anurag Promoters along with inter alia the petitioner herein and another person namely Mr. Darshan Lal Marwaha by making farm houses. He asked the husband of the Complainant to invest in the properties, as the prices are likely to rise and Dehradun is expected to be declared as the Capital. Based on these assurances, the Complainant alleges that she gave Rs.10,000/- to inter alia the petitioner herein and Mr. Darshan Lal Marwaha in the presence of Mr.Shri Kant Verma.

4. She further stated that they showed her the Plot No.34 in Khasra No.1532, Mauza Pondha, Tehsil Vikas Nagar, ad-measuring an area of 1145 sq.yards. She thereafter paid instalments till the year 2000 inter alia to the petitioner herein, and after receiving the full amount, the property documents were registered at Vikas Nagar, Dehradun on 28.11.2000. She thereafter requested for the mutation of the said plot, however, was informed that there is some dispute going on with the Government regarding the said plot and, therefore, mutation will be done at a later stage.

5. The Complainant states that she waited for the mutation to be done, but it is only later that she came to know that in the year 2018, pursuant to an order passed by the Supreme Court, the land has come back to the owner. She states that she went to the plot and decided to get a boundary wall constructed. There, she met another person, namely, Mr.Manoj, who was getting the boundary wall constructed of one of the acquaintances of the Complainant. He stated that he would get the mutation done for them.

6. She states that during the same period, the petitioner herein offered to buy the land from them, however, she refused.

7. She states that on the assurance of Mr.Manoj that he would get the property mutated in her favour and would get the boundary wall constructed, she further gave an amount of Rs.10,000/- to Mr.Manoj on 25.10.2020 at her house at Mithapur. He demanded original documents from the Complainant, however, the Complainant only gave the photocopy of those documents. She states that an amount of Rs.90,000/- was further transferred from the account of her husband to Mr.Manoj.

8. She states that in spite of taking money, Mr.Manoj did not get the mutation done and kept telling the Complainant to sell the said plot. He also made the petitioner herein meet the Complainant, who again asked the Complainant to sell the land. The Complainant states that she refused this offer.

9. She states that Mr.Manoj kept asking for the original documents, however, the Complainant again refused to hand over the original documents. Later Mr.Manoj came to the house of the Complainant and in conspiracy with others including the petitioner herein, obtained the original property documents from the Complainant for purposes of mutation, however, later it was learnt that he along with the petitioner herein and others fabricated property documents and sold the said land to third parties thereby causing a loss of around Rs.2 crores to the Complainant.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said FIR could not have been registered at Delhi as no pa