The High Court has jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs that do not disclose a criminal offence when the matter is essentially civil in nature.

JUDGMENT

1. The accused/Satish Mohan Aggarwal before the learned Trial Court, has filed Crl.M.C.1933/2020 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C.") seeking the quashing of FIR No. 41/2012, registered at Police Station Pahar Ganj, Delhi under Sections 420/467/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC"). He has also filed Crl.Rev.P.56/2021 against the orders dated 12th November, 2020 of the learned Trial Court whereby charge against him has been framed for offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC, though the charge-sheet filed against him was under Sections 420/467/34/120B IPC.

2. Since the decision in Crl.M.C.1933/2020, filed for quashing of the FIR in question, would directly affect the decision in Crl.Rev.P.56/2021, therefore, both the matters are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The allegation in the FIR as made by the complainant/respondent No.2, namely, Sanjeev Kumar Arora, is to the effect that the accused persons, which included the petitioner herein, had, through six Sale-Deeds dated 14th May, 2007 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated 7th June, 2007 (for short, "MOU") sold the property bearing No.1595 to 1600, situated at Main Bazar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055, to the respondents No.2 to 5. However, the original documents relating to the property were not handed over to them, as the accused persons informed the respondents No.2 to 5 that the original papers were lying with the State Bank of Patiala, Parliament Street, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Bank'). An assurance was given that the said documents would be obtained from the Bank and handed over to the purchasers/the respondents No.2 to 5 herein. According to the complainant/respondent No.2, the true facts had not been disclosed to the respondents No.2 to 5 since it subsequently came to their knowledge that on 31st October, 2011, the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Jhandewalan, New Delhi (for short, "DRT-I") had decreed a sum of Rs.1.73 crores in favour of the Bank. According to the complainant/respondent No.2, cheating had occurred when the petitioner had claimed the property to be free from all encumbrances, whereas even at the time of execution of the Sale-Deeds, the property was under litigation. It is stated that when the respondents No.2 to 5 demanded the original documents from the accused persons, they threatened and intimidated them. Therefore, the complaint was filed alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy.

4. Subsequently, when the MOU was handed over by the petitioner to the police, the complainant/respondent No.2 stated that possibly the MOU dated 7th June, 2007 had been got signed by the respondent No.3/Rakesh Kumar Arora fraudulently in the midst of other papers. In other words, the MOU was got signed deceitfully by the petitioner/accused person from the respondent No.3/Rakesh Kumar Arora.

5. When the matter was considered by the learned Trial Court at the time of framing of charge, the FSL report had been placed before it, which gave a conclusive finding that the thumb impressions on the MOU were found to be identical as those on the Sale-Deeds. Therefore, the learned Trial Court discharged the accused persons, including the petitioner, of the offence under Section 467/34 IPC.

6. It is informed that the complainant/State has preferred a revision before the lea