Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6222
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
N.G. Dev – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 1236/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State, Mr. M.N. Dudeja, Advocate
A petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as a second revision to re-appreciate facts already considered by lower courts; inherent powers are only for preventing abuse of process, and a criminal complaint that is inherently improbable and lacks prima facie evidence may be dismissed.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 482, 399, 391, 156(3) - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420, 120B, 34 - Criminal complaint dismissed for lack of prima facie evidence - High Court held that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as a second revision, and that the complaint lacked inherent credibility - The court emphasized that a criminal complaint cannot be used to enforce civil claims or recover money, especially when the transaction is highly improbable and unsupported by documentary evidence - The court also discussed the scope of inherent powers: they are not to be exercised for mere re-appreciation of facts. (Paras 33-46)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged that he was induced by the respondents to purchase a property for Rs. 6 Crores, and paid Rs. 4.39 Crores in cash, but no sale deed was executed. The complaint was dismissed by the Magistrate and the revision was dismissed by the Sessions Court. The petitioner then filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Findings of Court:
The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that it was a second revision and not maintainable. On merits, the court found the transaction highly improbable: no documents were executed, the respondents were not the owners, and the payment of such a huge sum in cash without verification was unbelievable. The court noted the absence of any corroborative evidence and upheld the lower courts' findings.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was maintainable as a second revision, and whether the complaint disclosed a prima facie offence of cheating.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be used to re-appreciate evidence or to convert a criminal complaint into a civil remedy. A transaction involving huge cash payments without documentation is inherently improbable and does not constitute a prima facie case of cheating.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the complaint and procedural history leading to dismissal of complaint. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. arguments of petitioner and respondents regarding maintainability and merits. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 3. court's observations on maintainability and improbability of the transaction. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 4. final conclusion dismissing the petition. (Para 46 , 47) |
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. A Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 Constitution of India has been filed to challenge the Order of learned ASJ dated 04.02.2017, whereby the Order dated 14.10.2015 of the learned CMM, dismissing the Complaint of the Petitioner, under Sections
406/420/120B/34 IPC , has been upheld.
2. The facts in brief, are that a Complaint Case No.33/12 titled ‘N.G. Dev vs. Gurucharan Singh etc.’ was filed by the Complainant /Revisionist under Section 406/420/120B/34 IPC. The Petitioner N.G. Dev alleged that Respondent No.2, Sanjay Garg had approached him for purchase of property No.A-14, Swasthya Vihar, Delhi in or around April, 2008 to August, 2008. He represented that the property was available at a good price and the prices were likely to escalate later, due to the Commonwealth Games and would give good profit. The Respondents visited his residence in the last week of August, 2008 and induced him to purchase the property for a sale consideration of Rs.6 Crores.
3. Though, the Petitioner insisted on execution of an MOU, but the Respondents cleverly avoided the execution of the same. The Respondents told him that the cash component of Rs.4.39 Crores would have to be paid first and at the time of execution of the Sale Deed, the balance amount would be paid through cheque. The Petitioner claimed that he approached various Banks and Financial Institutions for availing the loan. He made payment of Rs.4.39 Crores as follows:
(i) Rs. 70 Lakhs in cash on 17.11.2008 to Gurucharan Singh/Respondent No.l;
(ii)Rs. 50 Lakhs in cash on 01.12.2008 to Rinku/Respondent No.3;
(iii)Rs. 90 Lakhs in cash on 08.12.2008 to all Respondents;
(iv)Rs. 1 Crore in cash on 10.12.2008 to all Respondents;
(v)Rs. 1.05 Crores in cash on 13.01.2009 to all Respondents;
and (vi)Rs. 24 Lakhs in cash on 15.01.2009 to all Respondents.
4. The money was appropriated by the Respondents and they committed criminal breach of trust. Moreover, in furtherance of common intention and in conspiracy with each other, they cheated the Petitioner. Thus, the Complaint Case was filed under S.406/420/120B/34 IPC.
5. An Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was filed by the Petitioner along with his Complaint, but it was dismissed, by observing that there was no need for any investigations by the Police.
6. The pre-summoning evidence was led wherein the Petitioner examined eight witnesses, including himself.
7. The Learned CMM vide Order dated 14.10.2015 dismissed the Complaint, by observing that the Petitioner had failed to prove that he had arranged such huge amount Rs.4.39 Crores and had made the payment to the Respondent. The Petitioner had also failed to prove any connection with various Companies whose documents the Petitioner had relied upon, to show the arrangement of money.
8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Complaint, the Petitioner preferred Crl. Revision No.43841/2015, before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.
9. The learned ASJ observed that there was no Agreement to Sell executed between the parties in the Complaint and in Ex.CW1/16, Plot Number was mentioned as 814, when in evidence the Plot Number has been given as P-14. Moreover, it was beyond any logic how more than Rs.4 Crores would be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondents, merely on the basis of assurance, without verification of the documents of property which he intended to purchase. The Petitioner in fact, wanted to cheat the Government of the Revenue by
