ORDER

% 18.01.2023 CRL.M.A. 1235/2023 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C. 300/2023 This is a petition seeking quashing of order dated 20.09.2022 in Criminal Revision No. 732/2019 passed by learned Revisionist Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi vide which the order dated 04.09.2019 passed by learned MM-<br/>

04, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Case No. 3761/2018 was set aside. The petitioners are the owners of property bearing No. I-1657, CR Park and they entered into an MoU with a builder namely M/s. Swastic Real Home Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as „builder‟). Respondent No.2 is the complainant, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the Directors of the builder. Pursuant to the MoU, the builder constructed the floors and with an understanding that the second floor would be sold to the builder. In accordance with the MoU, the petitioners sold the second floor of the property vide duly registered sale deed dated 12.04.2016. The sale deed was accompanied by a site plan demarcating the car parking space in the stilt floor available to the builder. Subsequently, the same property with the same site plan which was purchased by the builder was sold to respondent Nos. 2 by a registered sale deed dated 13.05.2016 by the builder. Subsequently, respondent No.2 has filed an FIR alleging that the property which was sold to the builder was different from that of the sanctioned plan by the Municipal Authorities. As per the FIR, it is stated that the builder promised two car parking spaces side by side with a separate entrance gate only for the complainant. A bare reading of the sale deed vide which the property was sold by the petitioners to the builder and by the builder to the complainant i.e. respondent No.2 opposes this contention. A perusal of the site plan accompanying the two sale deeds clearly shows the car parking space in the stilt area sold by the petitioners to the builder and by the builder to the complainant. The same is not side by side but in an “inverted L shape”. Once the sale deed is clear as regards the area that was sold by the petitioners to the builder and by the builder to the respondent, there is no question of offering car parking space side by side. Prima facie, I am of the view that the said issue was correctly appreciated by the learned MM by holding “At the same time, it is worthwhile to mention that the complainant has himself alleged not to have dealt with the original owners of the property in question namely Dr Mamta and Hemant Abhichandani in any manner. There is no material on record to show any inducement or deception on part of the said accused to the complainant and in absence thereof, no prima facie case is made out for any offence against accused Dr Mamta and Hemant Abhichandani..” The impugned order passed by the Revision Court does not seem to consider the merits of the issue in controversy. It has also not dealt with the para quoted above of the Trial Court. For the aforesaid reasons, issue notice. Mr Singh, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State. Issue notice to the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 by all modes including electronic on the petitioners taking requisite steps within one week from today, returnable on 28.03.2023. CRL.M.A. 1233/2023 This is an application seeking ad-interim stay of the proceedings in Criminal Case bearing No. 3761/2018 titled „State v. Naresh Garg &amp; Ors.‟ arising out of FIR No. 289/2016, pending before learned MM, South East District, Saket Courts, Delhi. Issue notice. Mr Singh, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State. Issue notice to the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 by all modes including electronic on the petitioners taking requisite steps within one week from today, returnable on 28.03.2023. For the reasons rec