SUDARSHAN SINGH Vs. R VL KUKREJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of complaint case NO. 65/1/11 pending before the Court of learned ACMM, Tis Hazari District Courts, Delhi.

(2.) Addressing arguments, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant/respondent as the petitioner who was admittedly the owner of the property bearing no. A-1/200, Janak Puri, New Delhi had cancelled the power of attorney vide cancellation deed dated 27.9.2002. Counsel also submits that Mr. Tony Talwar in whose favour the petitioner had earlier executed the special power of attorney and later on whose power of attorney was cancelled by the petitioner had died in the year 2005. Counsel further submits that the petitioner had executed a special power of attorney in favour of the respondent giving him authority to deal with DDA and other statutory authorities. Counsel also submits that Mr. Tony Talwar had executed an agreement to sell dated 29.5.2004 in favour of the daughter-in-law of the complainant and this fact was never communicated by Mr. Tony Talwar to the petitioner. Counsel also submits that once the petitioner had cancelled the power of attorney then he had no right to enter into any sale transaction with the daughter-in-law of the respondent. Counsel also submits that had the petitioner not cancelled the power of attorney of Mr. Tony Talwar then he would not have executed a fresh power of attorney in favour of the complainant/respondent.

(3.) Based on the above submissions, counsel submits that no case of cheating under Sections 406/420/468,469,471/471/500/511, 120B IPC is made out against the petitioner even if prima facie material placed on record is taken into consideration.