MUDULI SUPRAVA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.349/2019 registered at PS Tilak Nagar u/s 420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC and consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) The contention of Mr. Ajeet Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire case setup against the petitioner was so improbable on the face of it that the FIR was required to be quashed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 and Anand Kumar Mohatta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706 It is submitted by the learned counsel that the FIR was a motivated one and was so intended only to subject the petitioner to vexatious litigation in the hope of some settlement being procured.

(3.) Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had approached the respondent No.2/complainant and had promised to help her with allotment of a DDA flat reserved for VIPs and which had been valued at Rs.42.00 lakhs, for a sum of Rs.16.00 lakhs. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this story was hard to swallow and no person would have fallen for such an offer. Furthermore, there was no proof of any payments having been made by the complainant to the petitioner since all the payments made by the complainant had been claimed to have been made in cash. There is only one witness, namely, the domestic help of the complainant, who claims to have witnessed one such cash payment.