The case of the petitioner/ complainant is that the prospective accused No.2, Mr. K.N. Shukla is one of the directors of accused No.1 company, namely Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. and is Page 1 of 14 responsible for day to day affairs and business of the said company.Prospective accused No.3 Mr. Vishesh Rastogi is the Manager and authorised signatory of the said company.Mr. Vijay Taneja, Sachin Bidhuri, Vinod Chopra, Sharad Taneja, Ramesh Arora and Rajiv Arora are well known to the complainant as they are doing the business of real estate.They approached the petitioner and told him that they are having very good relations with Mr. K.N. Shukla and Vishesh Rastogi of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd., who owns a very prime piece of land of more than 200 acres at G.T. Road, Amritsar, Punjab.Page 1 of 14The complainant initially refused any dealing with them.Mr. Vijay Taneja and the director of M/s SVS Infra Build Pvt. Ltd. proposed to become partner with the complainant in purchasing the land.On persuasion, the petitioner/complainant along with Mr. Harish Kumar came to Delhi.The prospective accused persons namely Vijay Taneja, Mr. Sachin Bidhuri, Mr. Vinod Chopra and Mr. Sharad Taneja took them to the office of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.The complainant was sent outside for taking lunch.When the complainant along with Mr. Harish Kumar came back, accused perons namely Vijay, Sharad, Sachin and Vinod took Mr. K.N. Shukla and Mr. Vishesh Rastogi in a separate room where they had some personal meeting.The accused persons told the complainant and Harish Kumar that they have finalised the deal and decided to purchase 160 acres of land at the rate of Rs.1.20 crores per acre.The complainant objected by saying that they should have been consulted before finalisation of the deal.Vijay Taneja, Sachin Bidhuri, Sharad Taneja and Vinod Chopra Page 2 of 14 told the complainant that they were partners in purchase of the said land and the complainant has to believe them.On their representation Mr. Harish Kumar, partner of the complainant paid Rs.25 lakhs through cheque No.065835 dated 16.6.2011 drawn on Central Bank of India in favour of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.20.00 lakhs in cash.Similarly the complainant also paid Rs.25.00 lakhs by way of cheque No.057822 dated 16.6.2011 drawn on Union Bank of India in favour of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.20.00 lakhs in cash.All the prospective accused persons directed the complainant to pay Rs.2.00 crores within two days in addition to Rs.1 crore which was to be paid by Mr.Vijay Taneja as his share.Page 2 of 14Mr. Vijay, Sharad, Sachin and Vinod in furtherance of their conspiracy, in presence of the complainant issued cheque No.019801 dated 17.6.2011 amounting to Rs. 1 crore (Rupees one crore) and told the complainant that this cheque was in lieu of the said cheque and has been issued in lieu of one-third share of the total amount of Rs.3.00 crores (Rupees three crores).The complainant paid amount on different dates as per receipts issued by Mr.Vishesh Rustogi, authorised signatory of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. The cheque bearing No.057822 dated 16.6.2011 for Rs.25.00 lakhs issued by complainant was not encashed on account of difference in signatures and in lieu thereof the complainant/petitioner transferred the said amount by way of RTGS in favour of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. Later on, the complainant came to know that the cheque for Rs.1.00 crore which was issued by SVS Infra Build Pvt. Ltd. was never produced for Page 3 of 14 encashment by accused No.1 company.The complainant also alleged that all the accused persons assured the complainant that after receipt of the total amount of Rs.3.00 crores (Rupees three crores), they will execute an agreement to sell and GPA in favour of the complainant and thereafter, further amount shall be paid after 30 days of the signing of the agreement.After 24.6.2011 the complainant asked the proposed accused Vijay, Vinod, Sachin, Sharad to get the agreement executed in his favour and they assured that the agreement would be executed very soon.In the first week of November, 2011 the complainant came to know through Mr. Ramesh Arora, Gurjit Aujla and Rajeev Kumar, who are partners/directors of M/s New Hope Developers that they have already executed an agreement to sell dated 28.6.2011 with M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. in favour of their company M/s New Hope Developers.The directors warned the complainant that they have agreement with accused No.1 company and if the complainant would take any action against the directors and authorised signatories of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. or partners of M/s SVS Infra Build Pvt. Ltd., the complainant has to face serious consequences.Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi called the status report.The petitioner placed on record a `settlement agreement' dated 29.5.2012 to show that M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. obtained approximately Rs.1,23,52,07,364/- from M/s Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as M/s. Gold Developers Pvt. Ltd.) against development consideration of 206.37 acres of land, out of which the petitioner was induced to purchase 160 acres.Vide order dated 11.7.2013, after considering the ATR, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed to change the Investigating Officer under the close supervision of SHO concerned.Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner was again forced to settle the matter with the accused persons.The petitioner made various representations with the senior officials but to no avail.Page 13 of 14By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `Cr.P.C.') the petitioner seeks quashing of final report dated 15.2.2012 submitted by the investigating agency in case FIR No.20/2012 under Section 420/120B IPC registered at P.S. Baramkhamba Road, New Delhi.In nutshell the facts of the case are that the petitioner lodged a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. seeking directions to the police for registration of FIR.The Metropolitan Magistrate directed the SHO, P.S. Barakhamba Road to file Action Taken Report.On 15.2.2012 FIR under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC was registered.The complainant has also alleged that on 5.11.2011, the complainant came to know through public notice in Tribune that land of M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. of which deal was conducted has already been mortgaged by the accused persons to Gold Developers Pvt. Ltd. (GDPL) and Gold Developers International Pvt. Ltd. (GDIPL) and both of these companies have their offices in New Delhi.Page 3 of 14The complainant has also alleged that all the proposed accused persons with dishonest intention fraudulently allured the Page 4 of 14 complainant to grab the amount of Rs.2.00 crores (Rupees two crores) and they have in furtherance of their conspiracy cheated the complainant.Page 4 of 14Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that after registration of FIR, the investigating agency started pressurising the petitioner/complainant to settle the matter with the accused persons and withdraw the complaint.Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. deals with the information to the police and their power to investigate.On an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner vide order dated 11.7.2013, the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi observed that the investigation has been passive and no sufficient progress has been made despite registration of FIR.The Magistrate directed the ACP concerned to change the Investigating Officer, who do not seem to be proceeding on correct lines and with the expediency the case requires and mark this case to an investigating officer of the rank of Inspector at the same police station.It was also directed that all the efforts be made for completing the investigation within two months.According to the status report filed on behalf of the State, since there is no written agreement between the complainant and Page 12 of 14 the alleged accused person/company and there was time stipulation to materialise any sale deed and title of the property in question remained with the alleged firm M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. which later on entered into fresh agreement with M/s New Hope Developers which was also not materialised.Page 12 of 14The receipt dated 16.6.2011 clearly depicts that the said amount was paid by the complainant (purchaser) towards advance to the seller in respect of land admeasuring 160 acres at the rate of Rs.1.20 crores.Similarly the receipts dated 17.6.2011, 18.6.2011 and 24.6.2011 clearly show that the amounts mentioned in the receipts were paid in respect of the 160 acres of land at Amritsar and the detailed agreement was to be executed within one week.The same fulfils requirement of an agreement.The agreement to sell executed on 28.6.2011 between M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s New Hope Developers is on record.Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a public notice published in the newspaper `Tribune' Chandigarh Edn.It is not clear that if the land in question of M/S Vishnurupa Devlopers Pvt. Ltd. situated at Amristar was freezed, as to how M/s Vishnurupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. managed to sell the part of the same land and what action was taken by the I.O. against the erring officials.In the light of the aforesaid discussion, without doubting the fairness of investigation carried out by the investigating officer, it would be fair and in justice of both the parties and the public that the investigation is done by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police.Accordingly, further investigation of FIR No.12/2012 dated 15.2.2012 registered at P.S. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi shall be carried by an officer not below the rank of Inspector in the crime branch of Delhi Police.The investigation shall be supervised by the officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police.Since FIR was registered in 2012, the investigation shall be completed expeditiously.With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.

Cited provisions: Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code