1. CRL..M.A. 23341/2023 (seeking initiation of appropriate proceedings u/s 340 CrPC) and M.A. 15261/2025 (for adjournment)
Application has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 / Ved Prakash Gupta for initiation of proceedings under S.340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "CrPC") against the Petitioner, Rajiv Gupta for commission of offence punishable under S.199/200 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC").

2. The brief background of the case is that Respondent No. 2 / Complainant, Ved Prakash Gupta had filed a Complaint with the Police against the Petitioner, Rajiv Gupta wherein it was asserted that Rajiv Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Bhagwan Dass and Co. and M/s Roshan Oil Mills was introduced to Respondent No. 2 through common friend. Respondent No. 2, Ved Prakash Gupta misrepresented about his intent to establish a University in Dehradun for which he claimed to have already obtained necessary permissions. It was further assured that Petitioner, Rajiv Gupta would pay him handsome interest on the proposed investment once the University is ready and the Respondent No. 2 would be entitled to get one candidate admitted in each course without paying any capitation fee besides enjoying full say in the affairs of the University and get other benefits as well. Respondent No. 2 was lured to invest Rs.110 Lacs as funds required for purchase of funds required for purchase of land, construction of building, obtainment of necessary permission, etc.

3. The Respondent No. 2 thus, alleged that the Petitioner, Rajiv Gupta neither established the proposed University nor paid any interest on the investments; rather he kept putting off the return on the invested amount, whenever the same was demanded by the Respondent No. 2.

4. On the Complaint of Respondent No. 2, FIR No. 211/2018 under S.420 IPC was registered at P.S. Crime Branch on 21.08.2018, against the Petitioner.

5. The Petitioner, Rajiv Gupta filed W.P.(CRL) 3895/2018 seeking quashing of the FIR No. 211/2018 dated 21.08.2018. The Respondent No. 2, Ved Prakash Gupta, asserted that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner, Rajiv Gupta expressed his intent to settle the matter before this Court on 19.12.2018. He also undertook to provide four properties in Delhi to secure the claims of Respondent No. 2. An Affidavit was also filed in support thereof, wherein properties listed at Sl. No. 2, 3 and 4 were in his exclusive name and free from any encumbrances. However, property at Sl. No. 1, i.e. Plot No. 21, Sector 9, Dwarka was stated to be in the name of Late Sh. Bhagwan Dass, father of Rajiv Gupta. The co - sharers of the property were stated to have already given "No Objection" in the name of the Petitioner. The value of the property is approximately Rs.2.3 crores.

6. The Respondent No. 2 further asserted that this Court in its Order dated 19.12.2018, considered the Affidavit dated 08.01.2019 and observed that Petitioner, Rajiv Gupta had undertaken not to sell or create any charge on the aforesaid four properties.

7. The Petition was disposed of on 15.10.2019 whereby it was directed that both the Complainant as well as the Petitioner shall submit their Income Tax Returns since 2010 along with the computation of income highlighting the treatment of amounts received by them pursuant to their inter se transaction. It was also observed that after the FIR, the quashing was sought. Respondent No. 2 made further assertions which are inconsistent with his Complaint at least insofar as the amounts invested are concerned. He now alleges that the invested sum by him was significantly larger than what was claimed earlier in his Complaint. It was observed that prima facie, it appears that Police Authorities are now being used by Respondent No. 2, Ved Prakash Gupta to iron out his commercial transaction with the Petitioner, Rajiv Gupta. This Court refrained from making any observations but noted that it is expected o