SATISH MOHAN AGGARWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused/Satish Mohan Aggarwal before the learned Trial Court, has filed Crl.M.C.1933/2020 under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C.") seeking the quashing of FIR No. 41/2012, registered at Police Station Pahar Ganj, Delhi under Ss. 420/467/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC"). He has also filed Crl.Rev.P.56/2021 against the orders dtd. 12/11/2020 of the learned Trial Court whereby charge against him has been framed for offence under Sec. 420 read with Sec. 34 IPC, though the charge-sheet filed against him was under Ss. 420/467/34/120B IPC.

(2.) Since the decision in Crl.M.C.1933/2020, filed for quashing of the FIR in question, would directly affect the decision in Crl.Rev.P.56/2021, therefore, both the matters are disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) The allegation in the FIR as made by the complainant/respondent No.2, namely, Sanjeev Kumar Arora, is to the effect that the accused persons, which included the petitioner herein, had, through six Sale-Deeds dtd. 14/5/2007 and a Memorandum of Understanding dtd. 7/6/2007 (for short, "MOU") sold the property bearing No.1595 to 1600, situated at Main Bazar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055, to the respondents No.2 to 5. However, the original documents relating to the property were not handed over to them, as the accused persons informed the respondents No.2 to 5 that the original papers were lying with the State Bank of Patiala, Parliament Street, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank'). An assurance was given that the said documents would be obtained from the Bank and handed over to the purchasers/the respondents No.2 to 5 herein. According to the complainant/respondent No.2, the true facts had not been disclosed to the respondents No.2 to 5 since it subsequently came to their knowledge that on 31/10/2011, the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Jhandewalan, New Delhi (for short, "DRT-I") had decreed a sum of Rs.1.73 crores in favour of the Bank. According to the complainant/respondent No.2, cheating had occurred when the petitioner had claimed the property to be free from all encumbrances, whereas even at the time of execution of the Sale-Deeds, the property was under litigation. It is stated that when the respondents No.2 to 5 demanded the original documents from the accused persons, they threatened and intimidated them. Therefore, the complaint was filed alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy.