Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
ANISH DAYAL
Peeyush Aggarwal – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
| 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 agre
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations of forgery, cheating, and threatening must satisfy the essential elements of the offenses under the Indian Penal Code. The ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the evidence of forgery and fraudulent transactions in property sales, leading to the dismissal of the petitions.
The court emphasized the statutory right and duty of the police to investigate cognizable offences and the sparing exercise of quashing power.
An attesting witness lacks the necessary intent or involvement in a fraudulent scheme, thus, mere attestation does not warrant criminal liability under sections 420, 120-B, and 506 IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sale deed being void and illegal is a subject matter of civil dispute and cannot be the ground for filing an FIR. The court also clarified....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
