STATE Vs. SRI NIWAS SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid petition being Crl.MC 3473 of 2008 is filed by the petitioner Mr. A.K. Govil under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing the order dated 21.10.2008 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate in a criminal case being FIR No. 213 of 2006 under Sections 420/406/120B IPC registered at Police Station Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. The other petition being Crl.MC 3245 of 2009 is filed by the State under Section 439(2) Cr.PC read with Section 482 Cr.PC for cancellation of bail granted by this Court to the respondent Mr. S.N. Sharma vide order dated 13.02.2007.

(2.) The necessary facts churn of details are these. On the complaint of Mr. A.K. Govil (petitioner in Crl.MC 3473 of 2008) and Mr. Amit Yadav, an FIR No.213 of 2006 was registered against Mr. S.N. Sharma (respondent in Crl.MC 3245 of 2009) on 14.6.2006 at Police Station Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. The allegations against Mr. S.N. Sharma were that he cheated Mr. A.K. Govil by making false promises to him of launching a Township Project in the name of Rajshree Group coming up as an IndoSwedish joint venture project in 280 acres of land on NH-91. On the basis of grand representations by the respondent , large number of investors invested in the said project and entered into agreements with the respondent . A payment of Rs. 71 lakhs was made by A.K.Govil in the form of two cheques dated 22.4.2006 favouring Boutanika Infrastructure and were given to the respondent at his office at 114, Jor Bagh, New Delhi. However, on the said date, the company was not in existence and it came into existence only on 11.5.2006.

(3.) The investors in their statements under Section 161 CrPC have stated that they were specifically told by the respondent that the company was having all the legal requirements for carrying out development projects with regard to Boutanika City proposed to be developed by M/s. Boutanika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The investors were assured that the company was having sufficient area of land for developing a township. However, according to the documents obtained from the office of Housing Commissioner and Chief Town and Country Planner, Lucknow pertaining to the development of township by private developers revealed that no registration was issued to M/s. Boutanika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. by the office of Housing Commissioner, Lucknow. The application in this regard was moved by the company on 21.9.2006, much after the registration of present case. As per the policy, once the private developer has been issued the registration, they were required to acquire upto 25% of the total land proposed for the development before submitting a request for development licence. The developer is authorized for sale/purchase of the land and advance receipts only after the sanction of lay out plan of first phase and execution of the development agreement with the government which is done only when 60% of the land is there in the form of sale deeds with the concerned private builder. Against the projection of 280 acres of land, the company must have been in possession at least 150 acres of land in order to become eligible for grant of development licence in order to become eligible for collection of advance money from the public. But, according to the documents seized by the investigation team, the company was in possession of only approximately 10 acres of land and hence, was not eligible to have received the advance from the various investors. No initial funding was arranged by the respondent and only the money collected from the investors was utilized for the purpose of purchasing land and running the company s affairs.