The Magistrate's discretion under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. to order further investigation is limited and must be substantiated by specific facts, not merely dissatisfaction with the investigation outcome.

JUDGMENT :

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. :

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 02.04.2024 (Annexure P-21) passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the application filed under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. in FIR No.109 dated 03.03.2022 under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 447, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC registered at Police Station City Sohna Gurugram, seeking further investigation into the matter was treated as a protest petition and the prayer for further investigation was declined.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. The case concerns a Collaboration Agreement dated 11.06.2013 executed between the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 5, wherein petitioner, being the owner of approximately 6.85625 acres of land, agreed to collaborate with respondent No.3, M/s HCBS Promoters and Developers Private Limited (for short HCBS'), for the development of an affordable Group Housing Colony.

3. In pursuance of the Collaboration Agreement, the parties executed an Escrow Agreement dated 02.02.2015 with YES Bank, stipulating that all funds related to the project would be received exclusively in Escrow Account No.000280200000419. Additionally, a power of attorney dated 12.11.2013 was executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.4, Bhupinder Singh, his son and any authorized representative of respondent No.3 HCBS. The scope of the power of attorney was restricted to obtaining permissions such as:

Change of land use;

Procuring licences;

Getting site plan sanction;

Obtaining necessary approvals for constructions and development;

Exercising complete rights over sale and receiving sale considerations only for the developer's share in revenue as per Clauses 15 and 16 of the collaboration agreement.

4. As per the approved building plan, 4% of the net plan area with 1.75 FAR was allocated for commercial purposes, and this was to be constructed as a separate building on the plot. However, in 2019, without the knowledge of the petitioner, respondent No.3-HCBS unilaterally shifted the entire commercial component into the stilt area, in violation of the Collaboration Agreement and the provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 1975 Act').

5. On 29.05.2019, respondent No.3 submitted an application for an occupation certificate based on these unauthorized altercations. The petitioner only became aware of this during an inspection conducted by representatives of the Town and Country Planning Department (for short TCP Department').

6. Furthermore, respondent No.5, Kuldeep Kumar, while falsely projecting himself as the Director of HCBS, submitted the application to the TCP Department using the name of the petitioner and the stamp of the company. The TCP Department subsequently refused to grant the occupation certificate, leading respondent No.3-HCBS to apply for revision of building and layout plans.

7. To facilitate this revision, respondent No.4,

Bhupinder Singh, in connivance with respondent No.5, Kuldeep Kumar, allegedly forged a resolution of the Board dated 22.04.2019 on a forged letterhead of the petitioner company. This fabricated resolution purportedly authorized respondent No.5 to comply with formalities for the revision of building plans. A fake stamp of the petitioner company was also created to make the resolution appear genuine.

8. In contrast, a genuine resolution dated 11.06.2013 had previously been submitted to the TCP Department signed by Smt. Davinder Randhawa, Director of the petitioner company.

9. Upon discovery of the violations, the Senior Town Planner, Gurugram, issued a letter dated 16.07.2019 to the Director General (DG), TCP Department, highlighting that the parking space in the stilt area had already been converted into a commercial component and that the violations were now being sought to be compounded through the revision of building plans.

10. Consequently, on 23.01.2020, the DGTCP issued a memo granting In-Principle Approval' for the revised p