KAVITA GUPTA Vs. SANJAY KOCHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure("the Code") for quashing of a criminal complaint by the Respondent for offence punishable under Sections 417, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

(2.) THE case of the Petitioner is that on 16.11.1989 Budhu (Respondent No.2, now deceased) entered into an agreement to sell with her in respect of Plot No.C-12, Zafarabad Residential Scheme, Shahdara for a sale consideration of Rs.3,60,000.00. A sum of Rs.1,45,000.00 was paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent No.2 as earnest money. Since the Respondent No.2 avoided to execute the sale deed, the Petitioners filed a suit being Suit No.937/1993 for specific performance of the contract on 18.10.1993 against the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 contested the Suit. However, the Suit for specific performance of the contract was decreed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge("A.D.J."), Delhi on 18.09.1998. On 11.10.1999, the Petitioners took out the execution of the earlier said decree. On 26.07.2001, the Respondent No.1(the complainant) filed objections to the execution of the decree against him. The objections preferred by the Respondent No.1 were dismissed by the Court of learned A.D.J., Delhi by an order dated 29.07.2005. In the meanwhile, the Respondent No.1 also filed a Suit for declaration and injunction against the Petitioners and the Respondent No.2 on 27.04.2002 with the prayer that the decree obtained by the Petitioners was not binding upon him. The Suit was dismissed on the ground that the remedy under law was available to Respondent No.1 by filing objections in the execution proceedings. A RFA No.391/2001 was also filed by the Respondent No.1 against the judgment and decree in Suit No.937/1993 which is still pending in Delhi High Court.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 very strongly canvasses that the execution of the agreement to sell dated 16.11.1989 propounded by the Petitioners is disputed by the Respondent No.1. She argues that on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 14.06.1993, the Respondent No.2 not only handed over the original documents, that is, the original sublease executed by the DDA in favour of the Respondent No.2, no objection certificate, possession letter etc. etc. but even possession of the plot No.C-12, Zafrabad Residential Scheme, Shahdara was handed over to Respondent No.1. In this view of matter, the agreement dated 16.11.1989 is claimed to be a sham document by the Respondent No.1. In spite of the Petitioners having obtained a decree on the basis of the same, its genuineness is very much in dispute and the Appeal filed by the Petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 10.09.1998 is still pending before the Delhi High Court.