PEATREE ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the Petitioner company under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure praying inter alia for quashing of the orders dated 12.11.2010 passed by the learned ASJ in Criminal Revision Petition No. 39/2010 and the order dated 19.7.2010 passed by the learned ACMM, whereby the complaint case filed by the Petitioner company against the Respondents was dismissed on the ground that the dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature and that no further police investigation was required. It was further observed by the learned ASJ that no offence was disclosed from the facts set out in the complaint as well as from a perusal of the testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioner/complainant.

(2.) In the impugned judgment, the learned ASJ considered the order dated 19.7.2010 passed by the learned ACMM, and after examining the facts of the case on the basis of the trial and upon hearing arguments of the counsel for the Petitioner, dismissed the revision petition with the observation that the case was purely civil in nature and in case the Petitioner company had any grievance against the Respondents, the remedy was available to it under the civil law for seeking recovery of the amount.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as per the Petitioner/complainant, are that in August, 2002, Respondents No. 3 & 4 visited the office of the Petitioner company and both the parties entered into a collaboration to develop a land owned by the Respondents. As per the Petitioner, Respondents No. 3 & 4 projected to the Petitioner company that the land in question was free from all kinds of disputes and encumbrances, and that if the Petitioner company would invest funds in the project, it would receive huge profits later. As a result, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 6.8.2002 was executed between the parties. At the time of signing the MOU, the Petitioner company paid a sum of 11.00 lacs to the Respondents towards part financial investment in the aforesaid project. However, thereafter when the Petitioner company got the papers of the said land verified, it came to know that a major part of the land in question was either under litigation or there were some encumbrances in respect of the said land. Immediately thereupon, the Petitioner company approached Respondents No. 3 & 4 for cancellation of the MOU. This was followed by execution of a document on 13.8.2002 between the Petitioner company and Respondents No. 2 & 3, cancelling the earlier MOU dated 6.8.2002.