In short, the facts of the case are that on 01.10.2013 complainant, Mr. Yogesh Tyagi lodged a complaint that one Mohd. Tasim who is working as Property Dealer told the complainant that the petitioner, who is owner of plot measuring 400 sq. yds.situated in Khasra No.27/19, Village Jharoda Majra, Burari, Delhi, has agreed to sell the said plot to Munavvar Hussain, S/o.Anuddin Hussain at the rate of Rs.45,500/- per sq. yd., total amounting to Rs.1,82,00,000/- and an agreement to sell dated 17.07.2012 was executed.Pursuant to the said agreement, Munavvar Hussain paid Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen lakhs only) as earnest money.Mr. Tasim handed over a Crl.M.C. No.3387/2014 Page 1 of 7 photocopy of the agreement and a receipt.The complainant agreed to purchase the said plot at the rate of Rs.46,500/- per sq. yd.from Munavvar Hussain.The complainant paid a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty one lakhs only) on 25.08.2012 as earnest money to Tasim and Manavvar Hussain, which was paid to Kuldeep Singh (petitioner) on the same day in respect of the said plot.Thereafter, the petitioner entered into his house and after some time came out armed with revolver and refused to return the original agreement and to issue the receipt by showing pistol.The complainant has also alleged that the complainant along with his brothers Rajesh Tyagi, Ashwani Crl.Thereafter, the complainant demanded the agreement to sell from petitioner but he refused to hand over the same.M.C. No.3387/2014 Page 7 of 7The petitioner acknowledged the receipt of the said amount on the backside of the agreement.Thereafter, two post dated cheques bearing Nos.699782 and 699783 amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) and Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) respectively both dated 25.09.2012 drawn on State Bank of India were issued and given to the petitioner.On 22.09.2012 a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs only) and on 25.09.2012 a sum of Rs.29,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty nine lakhs only) were paid to Tasim in respect of the said plot, who handed over the said amount to the petitioner and obtained receipt on the backside of copy of the agreement.The complainant has also alleged that he had also paid a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty lakhs only) to Tasim on 22.10.2012 in respect of purchase of said plot, which was to be paid to the petitioner.Mr. Tasim told him that he went to Kuldeep Singh (petitioner) and paid Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty lakhs only) to him and asked him to acknowledge the receipt of the said amount.The complainant tried to contact the petitioner and was ready to pay the balance amount but neither the documents of title were executed by the petitioner nor the amount of Rs.1,31,00,000/- (Rupees One crore thirty one lakhs only) was returned.The Investigating Officer verified the photocopy of agreement and bayana receipt from Notary Public and concerned stamp vendor regarding purchase of stamp paper and notarisation.The petitioner was absconding.Accordingly, proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.M.C. No.3387/2014 Page 3 of 7were initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 16.07.2014 and the process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. were executed on 22.07.2014 vide DD No.27, P.S. Burari, Delhi and the proclamation was published in the newspaper.I have carefully considered the material on record and I find that the petitioner was fully aware of the proceedings pending before the trial Court regarding issuance of the proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner as he could not be arrested despite Crl.M.C. No.3387/2014 Page 6 of 7 issuance of non-bailable warrants.The petitioner also received a notice dated 29.03.2014 sent by the Investigating Officer but the petitioner did not join the investigation.It appears that the petitioner tried to avoid the process of the Court.M.C. No.3387/2014 Page 6 of 7Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no ground for quashing the proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.M.A. No.11725/2014 The application is dismissed as infructuous.(VED PRAKASH VAISH) JUDGE AUGUST 25th, 2014 hs Crl.M.C. No.3387/2014 Page 7 of 7

Cited provisions: Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code