The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs must be exercised sparingly, ensuring sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused without assessing evidence prematurely.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner prays to quash FIR no.16/2021 under Section 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) registered by Crime Branch Kashmir, on the grounds mentioned in the instant petition.

2. FIR impugned has been lodged and registered on a complaint filed by one Mst. Shareefa Jan (respondent no.2 herein), alleging therein that she has paid a huge amount of Rs.66.74 Lacs to petitioners for purchase of Flat at Greater Noida. Rs.29.50 Lacs in cash had been paid to petitioner no.1; Rs.7.80 Lacs through cheques; and Rs.29.44 Lacs through bank transactions, but the Flat has not been provided to her nor the money has been returned back to her. On receipt of complaint by respondent-Crime Branch, a preliminary verification bearing No.Misc41/2019 was initiated. It surfaced that suspect have deceived complainant.

3. It is stated in the petition that both the petitioners booked residential and commercial units (Flats), located in NCR Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, with M/s Earth Infrastructure Private Limited way back in the year 2013. Petitioners made initial payments towards liquidation of agreed consideration amount as part payment, which were made through bank with branch office of the company at Srinagar through respondent no.4. It is also averred that purchase of aforesaid Flats got disclosed amongst relatives of petitioners, including respondent no.3, who is living in close vicinity of complainant/respondent no.2. He approached petitioners to facilitate her booking as well. Respondent no.2 was introduced to respondent no.3 and finally respondent no.2 booked one residential flat and one commercial unit in the same project and Tower. He paid Rs.3.20 Lacs about residential unit and Rs.7.80 Lacs for commercial unit as token money in favour of company through respondent no.3. It is also stated that before buyer-seller agreements could have been drawn, respondent no.4 cautioned petitioners from depositing any further amount with Earth Infrastructure as it had not been able to commence execution of projects. Respondent no.3, however, gave another offer to petitioner to shift towards another company, namely, Jaydev Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Petitioners executed buyer-seller agreement with Jaydev Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner also informed this fact-situation to respondent no.2. Consequently, respondent no.2 also shifted towards the new company and executed buyer-seller agreement. Respondent no.2 is said to have made payment; with respect whereof buyer-builder agreement was executed and respondent no.2 was handed over with advance monthly assured returns account payee cheques of the company in her personal name which she also encashed. According to learned counsel for petitioners, on one hand, respondent no.2 has entered into agreements with Jaydev Infratech and even received monthly dividends in the shape of assured return cheques and on the other hand she has falsely lodged complaint with respondent no.1 with an allegation of cheating and fraud against petitioners.

4. Insofar as respondent no.1 is concerned, their stand is that investigation conducted by it reveals that Rs.7.80 Lacs received from complainant through cheque has been credited by petitioner no.1 in the account of M/s Earth Infrastructure Private Limited on 27^th December 2023 while as bare reading of account statement of Earth Infrastructure also confirms this transaction of Rs.7.8 Lacs.

5. An affidavit has been filed by respondent no.4, in which he states that respondent no.2 had booked one residential flat and one commercial flat. She had deposited various amounts viz. Rs.3.20 Lacs, Rs.7.80 Lacs, Rs.15.00 Lacs and Rs.15.00 Lacs either by herself or through petitioner no.2 with the office of M/s Earth Infrastructure with effect from January to the year 2015. He has declared on oath that M/s Earth Infrastructure has already transmitted the amount against two booking flats and receipts have been issued in favour of respondent no.2 and nothing remained unadjusted. However, an opt