Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1735
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajbir Sehrawat, J.
Deepak Sachdev And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab And Another - Respondent
CRM-M-9774-2018 (O&M)
Decided On : 26-03-2019
Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepandshu Mehta, Advocate, for the Appellantrs; Mr. K.S.Aulakh, DAG, Punjab, for the complainant.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of representations made by the petitioners, the responsibility of the company to ensure renting out of the property, and the evidentiary value of the statements of witnesses in establishing the allegations of cheating by misrepresentation and fabrication of documents.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - IPC 420, 465, 466, 467, 471 - [Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 471 of IPC] - The court discussed the representations made by the petitioners to the complainant, the responsibility of the company to ensure renting out of the property, and the statements of witnesses in relation to the representations. The court highlighted the significance of clauses 24 and 25 of the allotment letter, which showed the company's exclusive rights to rent out and manage the property, and the expertise in maintenance and operation of malls. The court found that the allegations of cheating by misrepresentation and fabrication of documents were made out, and dismissed the petition to quash the FIR.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the petitioners, as executives of a company, made false representations to induce her to purchase a property in a mall, promising assured rent, which was not fulfilled. The petitioners argued that no offence was committed and that the complainant's case was a misuse of the court process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the representations made by the petitioners were corroborated by the allotment letter, and the responsibility of the company to ensure renting out of the property was established. The court also noted that the statements of witnesses supported the complainant's assertions, and the charge had been framed by the trial court, indicating sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged false representations made by the petitioners, the responsibility of the company to ensure renting out of the property, and the evidentiary value of the statements of witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the representations made by the petitioners were corroborated by the allotment letter, and the responsibility of the company to ensure renting out of the property was established. The court also noted that the statements of witnesses supported the complainant's assertions, and the charge had been framed by the trial court, indicating sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners.
Final Decision: The petition to quash the FIR was dismissed, and the court ordered that the petitioners be granted the concession of exempting their personal appearance during the trial, subject to specific requirements by the trial court.
JUDGMENT
Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) - Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.160, dated 29.12.2015, registered under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 471 of IPC, including report submitted under Section 173, at Police Station Division No.3, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of one Yogita Puri wife of Vikas Anand with the allegation that the Company, named Ansal Highway Plaza had developed a commercial mall on Jalandhar-Phagwara G.T.Road Highway. The said mall consisted of various commercial sites and accommodations available therein. The petitioners herein advertised and represented to her and to the general public as well, that all the shops/sites in the aforesaid mall, have already been leased out to the different tenants and that paying of the rent to the purchasers of shops/sites would immediately start after allotment of the site in question. On the above said representation of the Company and representation by the present petitioners, the complainant evincedinterest in purchasing shop in the said mall. On her showing interest in purchasing the site in the said mall, to further instill more confidence in the complainant, the petitioners and the Company Executives repeatedly visited her house and offered her the commercial space bearing No. SSF-06B measuring 1572 square ft. situated on the second floor of the said mall for a total sale consideration of Rs.85 lakhs. The petitioners herein, who were working as the Executives of the Company, represented to the complainant that the site offered to the complainant had already been rented out to one Femella Fashion Private Limited and that after deduction of TDS, the complainant shall get Rs. 64,660/- per month, as rent from the day one. It was further assured by the petitioners that the complainant would continue to get the rent in perpetuity and therefore, the petitioners shall have a fixed income against the investment made by her. Believing the representations made by the Executives of the Company as well as the Director of the Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, the complainant had purchased the above said unit No. SSF-06B measuring 1572 square ft. in the said mall for a sale consideration of Rs. 85 Lakhs. It was further alleged in the FIR that after issuance of the allotment letter, the complainant had been handed over as many as 17 cheques of Rs. 64,660/- each, issued by Femella Fashion Private Limited. This was done by the petitioners herein to assure the complainant that the premises in question had, in fact, been occupied by some tenant. Thereafter, some cheques were handed over by another Company named Ritesh Properties and Industries Private Limited for an amount of Rs. 68,774/- as the rent. It is further alleged that the complainant had not inducted any tenant on the said premises, nor, at any stage, she had been informed regarding the change of tenants. Still further, it is alleged that after 15.05.2010, the complainant did not receive any cheque on account of the payment of rent. Therefore, the complainant got suspicious about the representation made by the petitioners. The complainant had made an investment only on the assurance of the petitioners and of the Company that it would be the responsibility of the company to ensure that the premises is rented out and Mall is in operation in perpetuity. However, when the payment of rent was stopped then the complainant made enquiries at the spot and came to know that as a matter of fact, the unit purchased by the complainant had neither been occupied by the Femella Fashion Private Limited nor the same had ever been occupied by the Ritesh Properties & Industries Limited. Rather garbage and debris was lying on the site. Hence, it become clear that some cheques, mentioned above, were being issued only at the instance of the Mall Company i.e. Ansal Properties & Infrastructures Lim
