LAWS(SC)-2010-5-68

S P GUPTA Vs. ASHUTOSH GUPTA

Decided On May 13, 2010
S.P.GUPTA Appellant
V/S
ASHUTOSH GUPTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Special Leave Petition, the Petitioner, S.P. Gupta, has challenged the order dated 19th February, 2008, passed by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Crl. M.C. No. 847 of 2005, dismissing the Petitioner's application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the Criminal Complaint No. 932 of 1992, instituted against the Petitioner and the other co-accused by the Complainant (father of the Respondent) under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) By an order dated 7th April, 1992, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, issued summons to the Petitioner, Accused No. 1 Smt. Motian Devi Lamba and Accused No. 4 Shri G.R. Singhal under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The Revision Petition filed against the said order issuing summons having been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, on 8th February, 2005, the Petitioner moved the Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court.

(3.) Having regard to the allegations in the complaint, the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the said application upon holding that upon reading the complaint, it was not possible to conclude that not even a prima facie case had been made out against the Petitioner for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court took note of the fact that having regard to the role attributed to each of the accused which had been noticed by the learned Magistrate, summons had been issued to only three of them and that as far as the Petitioner was concerned, the narration in the complaint showed that he was integral to all the transactions that had taken place between the complainant and the Accused No. 1 as he was the constituted attorney of the said accused. The learned Single Judge also observed that whether the Petitioner had acted with dishonest intentions or as to whether he was unaware of the dishonest intentions of the Accused No. 1 or that he himself held out no assurance as to the title of the Accused No. 1 at the time the agreement for sale was executed or whether he acted beyond the scope of his authority under the power of attorney, were matters that raised triable issues and could only be determined by leading evidence at the trial.