INTHECOURTOFSHAJAYGUPTA:ADDITIONALSESSION JUDGE2(EAST),KARKARDOOMACOURTS,DELHI Cri.Rev.No.65/17 Inthematterof RajKumar S/oSh.[ENTITY] R/oD19,Shakarpur, Delhi110092 Revisionist 1. [ENTITY] (Govt.ofNCTofDelhi) 2. [ENTITY] S/oShriSushilKumar R/oH.No.15A,OldGeetaColony,Delhi Respondent Dateofinstitution 18.03.2017 Argumentsheard 07.06.2018 Dateoforder 07.07.2018 JUDGMENT
1. Thisrevisionpetitionhasbeenfiledagainsttheorderdated07.9.2016 passedbySh.[ENTITY],LearnedMetropolitanMagistrate,East, KarkardoomaCourts,Delhi,intheFIRcaseNo.726/15titledas[ENTITY]Vs [ENTITY]&Ors.Videaforesaidorder,Ld.MMhastakencognizanceof theoffenceandsummonedthepetitioneralongwithtwootheraccused personsu[SECTION].
2. Asperchargesheet,thecomplainantSh.[ENTITY]on [ENTITY]directedthedutyofficerto [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] etc 1 of 17 register a case u/[SECTION] [ACT] whereupon the aforementioned FIR was registered wherein allegations were made against five persons includingthepetitionerhereinandaftercompletionofinvestigation,three accused persons including the petitioner have been chargesheet for commissionofoffenceu[SECTION]andothertwoaccusedpersons have not been chargesheeted asno incriminatingmaterial wasfound againstthem.Noneoftheseaccusedpersonshavebeenarrestedduring investigationandchargesheethasbeenfiledwithoutarrest.
3. Prior to discussing the contents of charge sheet and complaint, it is necessarytodiscusscertainotherfactsofthecasewhicharerelevantfor the appropriate disposal of the present case. It is not clear from the charge sheet as to when the complaint was made with the PG Cell, however,itisclearfromtherecordthatpriortomakingthecomplaintwith thesaidauthority,thecomplainanthadfiledthesamecomplaintwiththe SHO,PSShakarpur,on10.10.2013,however,nocasewasregistered. Thereafter, the complainant had filed a complaint u/[SECTION] [ACT] alongwithanapplicationu/[SECTION].MM. Ld.MMhadcalledforthestatusreportandafterconsideringthesame, Ld.MMdismissedthesaidapplicationon26.7.14therebyobservingthat no police investigation was required in the matter and asked the complainanttoleadpresummoningevidence.However,thereafter,FIR wasregisteredbythesamepolicestationasthecomplainanthadalso approached the P.G. Cell. In the complaint, the complainant has mentionedtheaccused[ENTITY]asaccusedno.1,[ENTITY]asaccused no.2,SIPremPalSinghasaccusedno.3,Vivekasaccusedno.4andRaj [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] etc 2 of 17 Kumariesonof[ENTITY]asaccusedno.5andtherefore,inreferenceto theallegationsmadeinthecomplaint,theaccusedpersonshavebeen referredasA1toA5.
4. TheFIRhasbeenregisteredonthebasisofthecomplaintdt.10.10.2013 whereinthecomplainantmainlyallegedasunder:
(a) that vide agreement to sell and purchase dt. 23.04.2012, the complainantenteredintoanagreementwithaccusedno.1/[ENTITY] andaccusedno.2/[ENTITY]topurchaseaflatat3 rdfloor,ofproperty bearingno.D19,Shakarpur,Delhi110092forRs.55,00,000/.Asper demand, the complainant paid Rs.50,00,000/ to the accused no.1 [ENTITY] & accused no.2 [ENTITY] and rest of the amount of Rs.5,00,000/ was to be paid at the time of registration of sale documents. The accused no.1 is the owner of the property and accusedno.2isthebuilder.Theaccusedno.5/[ENTITY] accusedno.1.Theaccusedno.1and5stoodwitnessestothesaid agreement.
(b) that construction work of the flat was almost complete and only finishingworkwasremaining,thus,complainantinformedtheaccused no.1&2thathehasarrangedthebalanceamountofRs.FiveLacs andrequestedtheaccusedno.2togetthesaledocumentsexecuted fromaccusedno.1buttheyextendedthetimeononepretextorthe otherbutfinallyitwasdecidedthatdocumentswillbeexecutedon 23.09.2013.Accordingly,on21.09.2013,thecomplainantinformedthe accusedno.1&2thathehasarrangedthebalanceamountandthey shouldcometotheofficeofsubregistraronthesaiddatebutthey [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] etc 3 of 17 requestedthecomplainantthattheywillexecutedthedocumentson 26.09.2013. The complainant went to the office of subregistrar on 26.9.2013withthebalancesaleconsiderationandwaitedforthembut accusedpersonsdidnotcometheretill4pm.Thereafter,complainant wenttothehouseofaccusedno.1butherefusedtomeethim.
(c) thatcomplainanttriedtocontacttheaccusedno.1,2&5buttheywere notreadytomeethim,thenon09.10.2013,thecomplainantwentto A1whereuponA1calledtheA2thereandA5wasalreadypresent there.Theythreatenedthecomplainantnottodiscussabouttheflat againelsetheywouldbreakhislegsand A2&A5 threatenedtokill him.DuringsaidconversationA3&A4alsocomethere.A3whoisa subinspectorinDelhiPolicethreatenedthecomplainanttoimplicate himafalsecriminalcasesanddirectedhimtoacceptRs.40,00,000/ against Rs.50,00,000/ or forget the entire amount and when complainantopposedtheirsaidillegalacts,A1threatenedhimthathe isacriminalandmanycasesarependingagainsthimandhewillkill himthencomplainantlefttheplacetosavehislife.
(d) Thatcomplainantcametoknowthattheaccusedno.1,2&5with malafideintentionandulteriormotivetocheathimandtograbhishard earnedmoneyplayedfrauduponhimandtakenRs.50,00,000/from himandexecutedagreementtosellinfavourofA3&A4withoutthe consent of complainant and without returning Rs.50,00,000/ which wasreceivedbythemdishonestlyandinpreplannedmannertohave gainandcauselosstothecomplainant.
(e) ThatcomplainantishavingapprehensionthateitherA1&A2have [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] etc 4 of 17 already sold the flat to A3 A4 or soon they will execute the sale documentsintheirfavour.
5. Asdiscussedearlier,nocasewasregisteredonthebasisofthesaid complaint which was received by the SHO, Shakarpur on 10.10.13, however,theFIRwas registered around one and half year later i.e. 06.04.2015,whenthecomplainanthadfiledhiscomplaintinthePGCell, East Distt. After registration of case, the matter was investigated and during investigation, detailed statement of [ENTITY] and accused [ENTITY].Asperchargesheet,duringinvestigation inquiriesweremadefromaccusedSIPremPalSinghandhissonVivek who told the IO that they do not know the complainant Mr. [ENTITY] perchargesheetnoincriminatingevidencewasfoundagainstthemthus, theywerenotchargesheetedinthecase.
6. [ENTITY],thebuilder,[ENTITY],theowneroftheproperty and [ENTITY], the son of the owner/petitioner have been charge sheetedasaccused[ENTITY]hadexecutedanagreementtosellthesaid flatwiththecomplainantinthepresenceof[ENTITY]andRajKumarand without cancelling the said agreement, the accused persons sold the sameflattoSmt.[ENTITY].
7. VideimpugnedorderLd.MMhassummonedthepetitioner,hisfather [ENTITY]andbuilder[ENTITY].Thepetitionerhasassailedtheorderof summoningmainlyonthefollowinggrounds: [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] etc 5 of 17
(a) ThatLd.Trialcourtfailedtoappreciatethatonperusalofcomplaint itisevidentthatthedispute,ifany,isofthebreachofagreementto sell dt. 23.04.2012 and respondent no.2/complainant has tried to convert the civil dispute into a criminal case and complainant had alreadyfiledacivilcasewithrespecttothesameagreementpriorto theregistrationofFIR;
(b) ThattheLd.Trialcourtfailedtoappreciatethatthechargesheethas onlybeenfiledforthereasonthatcoaccused[ENTITY]hassoldthe third floor to Smt. [ENTITY] on 08.11.2013 without cancellingtheaboveagreementtoselldated23.04.2012;
(c) That Ld. Trial court failed to appreciate that no document i.e. or proposeddeedwiththecopyofstamppaper,wasannexedwiththe charge sheet to show that complainant was available for the registrationofthetransferdocumentstoshowthatcomplainantwas readytoperformhisparton26.09.13;
(d) That Ld. Trial court failedto appreciate that from the contentsof chargesheetnoingredientofcheatingorconspiracyaremadeout;
(e) That Ld. Trial court failed to appreciate that it was not bound to acceptthereport ofIO and whilesummoning the accused wasto applyjudiciousmindafterperusingthecontentsofchargesheetas well as evidence collected during the investigation to rule out the harassmentofanyperson.
8. IhaveheardLd.CounselforthepetitionerandLdAddl.P.Pforthestate aswellasLd.Counselforthecomplainantandgonethroughtherecord [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] etc 6 of 17 ofthecase.
9. Ld. Counsel for revisionist/accused has relied upon the case laws reportedasHarpreetRupalandOrs.Vs.[ENTITY],Cri.Rev.No.5488 of2005andHaridayaRanjanPd.VermaandOrsvs[ENTITY]ofBiharAnd Anr,[CASE NUMBER].
10. LdCounselforrespondentno.2alsorelieduponthecaselawsreported asArunBhandarivs[ENTITY]ofUP,Cr.AppealNo.78of2013andAshfaq AhmedQuereshi&Anr.VsNamrataChopra&Ors,Cr.AppealNo.2100 of2013.
11. [ENTITY]the owner of the property bearing No.D19, Shakarpur, Delhi110092, in conspiracy with accused [ENTITY], the builder and his son [ENTITY]/petitionerherein,hascheatedhim.Itiscontendedthat[ENTITY] hadenteredintoacollaborationagreementwithcoaccused[ENTITY]for reconstructionofhispropertyandbyvirtueofthesameagreement,the accused[ENTITY]wasgivenownershiprightovertheproposedthirdfloor oftheproperty.Itisfurthercontentedthaton23.04.2012,theaccused enteredintoanagreementtosellandagreedtosellthethirdfloorfor 55,00,000/(FiftyFiveLacsonly)andbyandbytilldated26.08.2013he paidRs.50,00,000/andrestwastobepaidon26.09.13atthetimeof registration of transfer documents, however, accused [ENTITY] did executethenecessarydocumentsonthatdateandlateron,flatlyrefused andthensoldthesameflattoSmt.[ENTITY]on08.11.2013 without cancelling the agreement executed with him. The allegations [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] etc 7 of 17 [ENTITY]/petitionerarethattheentirepaymentwas madetoaccused[ENTITY]intheirpresenceandtheywerewellawareof theexecutionoftheagreementbetweenhimandaccused[ENTITY]and despite that accused [ENTITY], instead of executing the necessary documents, in his favour, sold the same flat to a third person, in conspiracywith[ENTITY]andhisson/petitionerwhostoodawitnessto thedocumentsofsaleexecutedinfavourofSmt.[ENTITY].
12. Priortoanalyzingthefactsofthepresentcasetoseewhetherinthe instant case the ingredients of cheating are made out or not, it is necessarytofirstlydiscussherethelegalpositioninthisregard.
13. Theoffenceofcheatingisspelledoutinsection415[ACT]whichreadsas under: [SECTION]. Cheating: Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulentlyordishonestlyinducesthepersonsodeceivedto deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any personshallretainanyproperty,orintentionallyinducesthe person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he wouldnotdooromitifhewerenotsodeceived,andwhichact oromissioncausesorislikelytocausedamageorharmto thatpersoninbody,mind,reputationorproperty,is saidto "cheat".
Explanation.Adishonestconcealmentoffactsisadeception withinthemeaningofthissection.
14. InthecasereportedasG.V.Raov.L.H.V.Prasadandothers,2000(2) RCR(Crl.) 290, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observationsregardingthefactorswhicharenecessarytoconstitutethe offenceofcheating: "Asmentionedabove,Section415hastwoparts.Whileinthe first part, the person must "dishonestly" or "fraudulently" inducethecomplainanttodeliveranyproperty;inthesecond part,thepersonshouldintentionallyinducethecomplainantto [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] etc 8 of 17 do or omit to do a thing. That is to say, in the first part, inducement must be dishonest or fraudulent. In the second part, the inducement should be intentional. As observed by thisCourtinJaswantraiManilalAkhaneyv.[ENTITY]ofBombay, AIR1956SupremeCourt575,aguiltyintentionisanessential ingredient of the offence of cheating. In order, therefore, to secure conviction of a person for the offence of cheating "mensrea"onthepartofthatperson,mustbeestablished.It wasalsoobservedin MahadeoPrasadv.[ENTITY]ofW.B.,AIR 1954SupremeCourt724,thatinordertoconstitutetheoffence ofcheating,theintentiontodeceiveshouldbeinexistenceat thetimewhentheinducementwasoffered."
15. In the case reported as [PRECEDENT]otherwise,itwould notamounttoanoffenceunderSection420IndianPenalCodeandit may only amount to breach of contract. Thus, for having a case of cheatingcomplainanthastoshowthataccusedhadadishonestintention sincebeginningofthetransactionandthataccusedneverintendedto deliverthepropertyagreedandwantedtodishonestlyreceivethemoney.
16. InthecasereportedasHridayaRanjanPrasadVermaandothersvs [ENTITY]ofBiharandanother,2000Cr.LJ2983,Hon'bleSupremeCourt ofIndia,haslaiddownthedistinctionbetweenbreachofcontractandthe offenceofcheatingandhasobservedasfollows: "16.Indeterminingthequestionithastobekeptinmindthat the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offenceofcheatingisafineone.Itdependsupontheintention oftheaccusedatthetimeofinducementwhichmaybyjudged byhissubsequentconductbutforthissubsequentconductis notthesoletest.Merebreachofcontractcannotgiveriseto criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction,thatisthetimewhentheoffenceissaidtohave [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] etc 9 of 17 beencommitted.Therefore,itistheintentionwhichisthegist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promisecannotbepresumed."
17. [PRECEDENT]:
31.Section415oftheIndianPenalCodedealswithcheating. Toholdapersonguiltyofcheatingasdefinedunder[SECTION]oftheIndianPenalCode,itisnecessarytoshowthathe hasfraudulentordishonestintentionatthetimeofmakingthe promise with an intention to retain the property. In other words, [SECTION] of the [ACT] which defines cheating,requiresdeceptionofanyperson(a)inducingthat personto:(i)todeliveranypropertytoanyperson,or(ii)to consent that any person shall retain any property OR (b) intentionallyinducingthatpersontodooromittodoanything whichhewouldnotdooromitifhewerenotsodeceivedand whichactoromissioncausesorislikelytocausedamageor harmtothatperson,anybody'smind,reputationorproperty. Inviewoftheaforesaidprovisions,theappellantsstatethat personmaybeinducedfraudulentlyordishonestlytodeliver anypropertytoanyperson.Thesecondclassofactssetforth intheSectionisthedoingoromittingtodoanythingwhich thepersondeceivedwouldnotdooromittodoifhewerenot sodeceived.Inthefirstclassofcases,theinducingmustbe fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducingmustbeintentionalbutnotfraudulentordishonest.
18. In the said case Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed as follows:
37. It is settled law, by catena of decisions, that for establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant is requiredtoshowthattheaccusedhadfraudulentordishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. From his making failure to keep up promise subsequently, suchaculpableintentionrightatthebeginningthatisatthe timewhenthepromisewasmadecannotbepresumed.Itis seenfromtherecordsthattheexemptioncertificatecontained necessaryconditionswhichwererequiredtobecompliedwith after importation of the machine. Since the GCS could not [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] etc 10 of 17 comply with it and, therefore, it rightly paid the necessary dutieswithouttakingadvantageoftheexemptioncertificate. The conduct of the GCS clearly indicates that there was no fraudulent or dishonest intention of either the GCS or the appellantsintheircapacitiesasofficebearersrightatthetime ofmakingapplicationforexemption.Astherewasabsenceof dishonestandfraudulentintention,thequestionofcommitting offenceunderSection420oftheIndianPenalCodedoesnot arise.Wehavereadthechargesheetasawhole.Thereisno allegationintheFirstInformationReportorthechargesheet indicatingexpresslyorimpliedlyanyintentionaldeceptionor fraudulent/dishonest intention on the part of the appellants right from the time of making the promise or misrepresentation. Nothing has been said on what those misrepresentationswereandhowtheMinistryofHealthwas dupedandwhatweretherolesplayedbytheappellantsinthe alleged offence. The appellants, in our view, could not be attributed any mens rea of evasion of customs duty or cheatingtheGovernmentofIndiaasthecancersocietyisa nonprofitorganizationand,therefore,theallegationsagainst theappellantslevelledbytheprosecutionareunsustainable. Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme Certificate along with the Duncan's and [ENTITY]'s judgments clearly absolve the appellantshereinfromallchargesandallegationsunderany otherlawoncethedutysodemandedhasbeenpaidandthe allegedoffencehasbeencompounded.Itisalsosettledlaw thatonceacivilcasehasbeencompromisedandthealleged offence has been compounded, to continue the criminal proceedings thereafter would be an abuse of the judicial process.
19. InthecasereportedasVesaHoldingsP.Ltd.v.[ENTITY]ofKerala 2015 AIR(SCW)2245theHon'bleSupremeCourthasheldthatintentionto deceivehastobefromtheveryinceptionandifdevelopedsubsequently thennooffenceofcheatingwillbemadeout.TheobservationofHon'ble SupremeCourtareasfollows:
8. From the decisions cited by the appellant, the settled propositionoflawisthateverybreachofcontractwouldnot give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breachofcontractwouldamounttocheatingwheretherewas anydeceptionplayedattheveryinception.Iftheintentionto cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In other words for the purpose of constituting an offenceofcheating,thecomplainantisrequiredtoshowthat [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] etc 11 of 17 theaccusedhadfraudulentordishonestintentionatthetime of making promise or representation. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a culpable intentionatthetimeofmakinginitialpromisebeingabsent,no offence under [SECTION] of the [ACT] can be saidtohavebeenmadeout.
20. Inregardtothepresentscenariotheillustration(g)ofsection415[ACT]is alsorelevantwhichreadsasfollows:
(g) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to delivertoZacertainquantityofindigoplantwhichhedoes not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advancemoneyuponthefaithofsuchdelivery.Acheats;but ifa,atthetimeofobtainingthemoney,intendstodeliverthe indigoplant,andafterwardsbreakshiscontractanddoesnot deliverit,hedoesnotcheat,butisliableonlytoacivilaction forbreachofcontract.
21. Thus,inviewofthesettledlaw,thedishonestintentiononthepartofthe promisoristobetherefromthetimewhenthepromiseismadeandifthe promisorbreakshispromisesubsequently,thenitmayamounttobreach ofcontractbutnotcheating.
22. Nowintheviewofthelightofthesettledlawthefactsofthepresent case are to be viewed. Now let us see whether the facts and circumstancesofthepresentcaseshowthattheaccused[ENTITY]had made a false promise of the delivering the possession of the flat and whetherhehadnointentiontoactuallydeliverthepossessionoftheflat to the complainant. The intention of the accused [ENTITY] can be gatheredfromtheallegationsmadeinthecomplaintandfromtheother materialavailableonrecord.
23. The present case was registered on the basis of the complaint dt.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] etc 12 of 17 10.10.2013.Therearenoallegationsinthecomplaintthatatthetimeof enteringintoanagreement/MOU,theaccused[ENTITY]hadmadeafalse promise to him to deliver the possession of the flat with the malafide intention to receive his money and since inception of the agreement accused[ENTITY]neverintendedtoselltheflattohimandalwayswanted to sell the flat to a third person and not to him as promised in the memorandumofunderstandingdt.Thecomplainanthasmainlyalleged that the accused has played fraud upon him as he entered into an agreementtoselltheflatwithhimandreceivedRs.FiftyLacsandnow withouthisconsentorpermissioneitherhehasalreadysoldtheflatto accusedno.3and4orsoonwillexecutethedocumentsintheirfavor. Therelevantparawherecomplainanthasmadetheallegationsoffraud readsasfollows: "ThatthecomplainantcametoknowthattheaccusedNo.1,2 &5withmalafideintentionandulteriormotivestocheatthe complainantandtograbthehardearnedmoneyplayfraud with the complainant and taken Rs.50,00,000/ from the complainantbyexecutingagreementtosellandpurchaseand constructed the building and now sale the same to the accusedNo.3&4withouttheconsentandpermissionofthe complainant with whom the accused No.1 & 2 already agreementtosaleandpurchase23/04/2012withoutreturned the huge amount of Rs.50,00,000/ which was received by them dishonestly and in preplanned manner to gain themselvesandlosstothecomplainant."
24. Thus,itisclearfromtheperusalofthecomplaintthatthenecessary ingredientsofdishonestintentionfromtheinceptionofthepromiseare missinganditclearthatthegrievanceofthecomplainantisthatthefirstly accused promised him to sell the flat to him and took Rs. Fifty lacs [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] etc 13 of 17 Rupeesfromhimanddespitethathenowintendtosellthesametoa third person that too without hispermission. Thus, itisclear from the contents of the complaint itself that neither malafide intention since inceptionpleadednorsupportedbyanymaterial.
25. Since,thereisnomaterialavailableonrecordtoascertaintheintention oftheaccused[ENTITY],therefore, the factthatwhether accused had malafideintentiontocheatthecomplainantornotfromthetimeofthe executionoftheagreementcanalsobeassessedfromthepreviousand subsequentconductoftheaccused.Itisadmittedpositionoffactthatthe agreementtosellwasexecutedon23.04.2012andasperagreementthe accused [ENTITY] was to sell the third floor situated in the property bearingNo.D19,Shakarpur,Delhi.Initiallythelastdateof23.01.2013 whichwasadmittedlyextendedtill26.09.2013.Itisadmittedpositionof factthataccused[ENTITY]washavingownershiprightsoverthesaidflat andaftersaidagreementheconstructedthesaidflatalso.Itisalsoclear thatboththepartieswentaheadwiththeagreementandcomplainant continuedtomakethepaymentstoaccused[ENTITY]till26.08.2013and bythattimecomplainanthadpaidRs.FiftyLacsandaspercomplainant last date of payment of the balance amount and execution of the documents was fixed for 23.09.2013 which was also extended till 26.09.2013.Thus, itisclear that atleast till 26.08.2013there wasno dispute between the parties and both the parties had stood by the agreement. As per charge sheet, on 25.05.2013, the accused had permitted the complainant to perform Muhurat puja in the semi constructedflatasthereafter,thispujacouldbeperformedonlyafter3to [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] etc 14 of 17 4monthsperiod.Thisfactitselfshowsthatatleasttill25.05.2013,the accusedwantedtoperformhispartofcontractelsehewouldnothave allowedthecomplainanttoperformpujainsemiconstructedflat.
26. Itisalsoclearfromtherecordthatthecomplainantmadepaymentsfrom timetotimeandaccused[ENTITY]alsoconstructedtheflat.Itisalsoclear fromtherecordthataccused[ENTITY]didnottransfertheflattothethird persontillthelastdatefixedformakingthepaymentofbalanceamount andexecutionoftransferdocuments.Asperchargesheettheaccused [ENTITY]hadsoldtheflattoSmt.[ENTITY]ondt.10.10.2013 whichismuchafterthelastdatefixedbyboththeparties.Thus,thereis nothingonrecordtoshowthataccused[ENTITY]didenterintothesaid agreementwiththecomplainantonlywithaviewtousurpthemoneyof the complainant and had no intention to transfer the flat to the complainantratherthefactsdiscussedaboveclearlyshowsthatboththe partiesweregoingalongnicelywiththeagreementtill26.08.2013and whateverhappenedhadonlyhappenedmuchlatertotheexecutionofthe agreementtoselldated23.04.2012.Duringthecourseofinvestigation thestatementofaccused[ENTITY]wasrecordedwhereinhestatedthat hesoldtheflatinNovember,13whencomplainantdidnotcomeforward withthebalancepaymentdespiterequestsandthreelegalnotices.Thus, underthesecircumstancesitisclearthattill26.08.2013,therewasno disputebetweenthepartiesandsomedisputearoselateronforwhich bothpartiesareblamingeachotherandinthisregardacivilcaseisalso pendingbetweentheparties.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] etc 15 of 17
27. Duringthecourseofarguments,Ld.Counselforpetitionerhasplaced onrecordacopyofthecomplaintdt.10.10.2013madebycomplainant withtheofficeofSubregistrar,ShastriNagar,Delhi110031.Ld.Counsel ofcomplainanthasnotdeniedthisfact. Thecontentsofsaidcomplaint readsasfollows: , , ,110031 : 19, , , , , 10092,19
, 19, 110092 23.04.2012
15, 10.10.2013 110031 9810662708
28. Theperusalofthecontentsofthecomplaintshowsthatevenasper complainant, the accused [ENTITY] was ready to execute the transfer documents in favour of complainant and only dispute between parties was regarding the quantum of consideration amount which was to be [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] etc 16 of 17 mentionedinthetransferdocuments.Thus,thisfactfurtherfortifiesthe factthataccused[ENTITY]hadnotenteredintotheagreementwiththe complainant with any malafide intention and some dispute had subsequentlyarisen.
29. Thus,underthesecircumstances,therearenoingredientsofcheatingor conspiracyforthesame,areavailableonrecordandtothebestitmayor maynotbeacaseofbreachofcontractandwhichpartyisresponsible forbreachofcontractistobeadjudicatedbytheLd.CivilCourtwhere thisdisputeisalreadypending.Itismostrespectfullyobservedthatthe caselawscitedbyLd.Counselforcomplainantarenotapplicabletothe peculiarfactsandcircumstancesofthepresentcase.
30. Thus,inviewoftheabovediscussedfactsandcircumstances,itisheld thatnooffenceu[SECTION]ismadeoutintheinstantcase,thus, orderofsummoningthepetitionerisliabletobesetaside,accordingly sameisherebysetaside.Petitionerisdirectedtofurnishbondu/s437A [ACT]beforetheLd.TrialCourt.AcopyofthisorderbesenttotheLd. TrialCourt.RevisionfilebeconsignedtoRecordRoom.
[ENTITY] GUPTA Date: 2018.07.07 16:04:07 +0530 ([ENTITY]) ASJ02/SpecialJudge(NDPS) KKD/East/Delhi Announcedinopen courton07.07.2018 [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] vs [ENTITY] etc 17 of 17