$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1367/2024 & CRL.M.A. 13464/2024 GROVER BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

.....Petitioners Through: Mr. Girish Kumar, Advocate (through VC)

versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO PS DABRI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC with Mr. Arjit Sharma and Ms. Sakshi Jha, Advocates for the State CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 16.12.2025

1. Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed on behalf of Petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No. 0649/2022, registered at P.S. Dabri, Delhi under Sections 420/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The grounds of challenge of the FIR are that it is purely a civil transaction which has been given a criminal color. There is no dispute between Respondent No. 2 and Petitioner and if at all there is one, it is purely civil in nature.

3. The Respondent No. 2 has not approached the Court with clean hands. He had filed a Civil Suit for specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 17.07.2017 and for permanent injunction claiming that property bearing No. C-203, Second Floor, West Facing, ad measuring 92 Sq. Yds., 3 BHK, Som Bazar Road, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi even after knowing that Respondent No. 2 has booked only 92 Sq. Yds. West facing of the property in question.

4. Respondent No. 1 in collusion with her husband Sumit Sharma, has forged the Agreement to Sell dated 17.07.2017 by putting the signatures of the witnesses and has been filed in the Court of learned ASJ. At the time of execution of Bayana receipt dated 16.07.2017, Petitioners had handed over the Collaboration Agreement alongwith Annexures are after understanding the entire terms and conditions, Respondent No. 2 agreed to purchase the property in question and now has lodged a false FIR.

5. The Complaint of Respondent No. 2 does not disclose the commission of cognizable offence. FIR has been lodged only to achieve the ill goal and with the motive to extract money from the Petitioners. The Respondent No.2 has failed to make balance payment to the Petitioners as per Agreement to Sell dated17.07.2017. The Respondent No. 2 and her husband had approached the Petitioners for extending the time period for Agreement to Sell as they did not have money. Petitioners issued legal Notice dated 09.07.2017 to the Respondent No. 2 to execute the Sale Deed despite which the Notice was not complied with. The Respondent No. 2 has been blackmailing the Petitioners to execute the Sale Deed.

6. The FIR is false, frivolous and vexatious.

7. Reliance is placed on Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 SCC online SC 90, Sarabjit Kaur v. The State of Punjab & Anr. in Crl. Appeal No. 581/2023, Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673, Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293, Naresh Kumar & Anr. v. The state of Karnataka & Anr., 2024 Live law (SC) 228, Jay Shri v. The Sate of Rajasthan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 51, Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. and others, (2006) 6 SCC 736 and Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 14 SCC 626. It is, therefore, submitted that the FIR is liable to be quashed.

8. Learned Counsel for the Complainant submits that it is actually the Complainant who has been cheated of the money by being lured into an Agreement to Sell in respect of a property of which the Complainant is not even the owner.

9. Learned Counsel on behalf of the State submits that the investigations are almost complete and the Chargesheet is likely to be filed in the Court.

Submissions heard and record perused.

10. The allegations as per the FIR were that the Petitioners had executed an Agreement to Sell in respect of Suit property by claiming himself to be the owner. However, the Complainant subsequently came to know that he was not the owner but only a builder. Furthermore, information was received that the Petitioner-S