Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Anish Dayal, J.
Peeyush Aggarwal - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.M.C. 5291 of 2018
Decided On : 22-12-2022
A bona fide purchaser misled in a fraudulent property transaction cannot be charged under IPC; legitimate transactions cannot be criminalized without clear evidence of intent to deceive.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34, 120B - FIR quashed - Petitioner, a bona fide purchaser, was misled into a fraudulent property transaction by respondent - Petitioner was a victim of fraud, not an accomplice - Quashing of FIR is warranted as no role established for petitioner in alleged offences. (Paras 1, 3, 8, 11)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 156(3) - Authority to order FIR registration clarified, ensuring that criminal proceedings are not abused for civil disputes. (Paras 4, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner paid Rs.26,60,000/- to the respondent, who misrepresented property ownership. Despite numerous meetings, the respondent became unreachable and later filed a counter-FIR falsely implicating the petitioner as an accomplice in fraud.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in allegations against the petitioner and held him to be a victim of the fraud perpetrated by the respondent.
Issues: Whether the petitioner committed any offences under IPC in relation to the FIR or if he was merely a victim.
Ratio Decidendi: Court asserted that a property transaction executed in good faith by a party who is led to believe in its legitimacy cannot be criminalized, highlighting the need for clear inducement and intention in establishing fraud.
Result: FIR No.194/2018 quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner is a victim of fraud. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments highlighting absence of guilt. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. legal standards regarding forgery and cheating. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. quashing the fir as per court's decision. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
Anish Dayal, J.
1. This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 194/2018 dated 3rd July, 2018 registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/34/ 120B IPC on the ground that the petitioner himself is a victim of a fraud which had been played relating to a property sale. The basic facts are that one Mrs. Yogita Baxla, respondent No.2, herein approached the petitioner in the month of October, 2010 for selling an industrial plot No. B-65/2, Wazirpur Industrial Area, New Delhi - 110052 admeasuring 2067.033 sq.yds. representing herself as absolute owner of the property on the basis of a Will dated 8th November, 2005 executed by her grandmother Late Smt. Raj Rani Chhabra/ Chawla. The respondent No.2 provided all relevant legal documents including relinquishment deeds of other legal heirs. Pursuant to a number of meetings between petitioner and respondent No.2 in 2010 and 2011, the sale price of the property was agreed at Rs.7.31 crores. Consequently for the purchase of the property payments of Rs.15 lakhs was made on 20th November, 2010 by petitioner's cheque and then cash amounts of Rs. 1,10,000/-. An MOU was executed on 26th March, 2011 and pursuant to that about Rs.10,15,000/- was further paid to respondent No.2. Thus, by June, 2011 a cumulative sum of Rs.26,60,000/- had been paid by the petitioner as advance money towards purchase of the property.
2. Thereafter despite meetings, respondent No.2 would not execute the sale deed and soon became unreachable when the petitioner realised that he had been cheated. Later he learnt that respondent No.2 had got FIR No. 88/2011 registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B IPC with Economic Offences Wing (EOW) against Mr. Raj Kumar Harjai, respondent No.3 herein claiming that the property in question had been grabbed by them.
3. An application filed by Mr. Raj Kumar Harjai, respondent No.3 under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. the Ld. CMM ordered registration of an FIR against 10 accused persons, including the petitioner who has been arrayed as accused No.9 and as such, FIR No.194/2018 came to be registered at P.S. Ashok Vihar. The allegation was respondent No.2 in connivance with the petitioner and others forged the documents to create third party rights in the property in question. Considering that petitioner himself has been out of pocket to the tune of Rs.26.6 lakhs and was himself victim of cheating and fraud, she has sought quashing of this FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the charge sheet in FIR No.88/2011 itself concludes that the petitioner is a victim. A perusal of charge sheet dated 31st January, 2018 would show that it has been stated that "Mr. Peeyush Aggarwal made complaint against her in EOW which has been taken on record" and "on perusal of various agreements and documents and bank statements it has been established that Yogita Baxla cheated all the three persons" and "Ms. Yogita Baxla was never in position to transfer the rights in favour of any individual person. She misrepresented various persons and took money from them. In this manner she cheated all of them...".
5. Secondly, the counsel for petitioner has contended that there was no role of the petitioner in the aforesaid FIR No.194/2018 which was filed by Mr. Raj Kumar Harjai. A bare reading of the FIR would show that as regards the petitioner, he has only stated that "on 26th March, 2011 Yogita Baxla had once again sold the property to another person namely Peeyush Aggarwal" though later in the FIR it has been merely stated as a blanket statement that Yogita Baxla, Mahipal Singh, Rajesh Luthra and Peeyush Aggarwal were in connivance with each other and prepared the documents in order to create 3rd party rights o
