NAHIDCO HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .This petition has been filed by M/s National Housing & Industrial Development Corporation P.Ltd. (NAHIDCO) through its Director Sh. Harvinder Kumar Gupta under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1937 (Code for short) for quashing the impugned order dated 7.10.89 of learned ACMM and 11.1.1991 of learned ASJ, New Delhi eith further prayer to restore back to the Company three attached flats,m namely, M-2, M-3 and M-4, Magnum House, Karam Pura Complex, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi with all its records lying there.

(2.) .I have beard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The circumstances in which these properties came to be attached are that one Sadhu Singh Gill addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (west) Rajouri Garden New Delhi resulting in the recording of FIR 241 dated 10.10.88 at PS Moti Nagar, New Delhi. He stated that NAHIDCO having their office at 101, Magnum House, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi published an advertisement in Hindustan Times in March/ April, 1984 for providing dwelling units near D.L.F. Qutab Enclave and village Nathu Pura. In response to it, he applied for a Hat having a total area of 1250 sq. ft. with an estimated cost of Rs.55.600.00 . He made initial deposit of Rs. 9750.00 on 12.5.1984. Thereafter he deposited three more amounts totalling Rs.21.800.00 . As per terms and conditions of the Company, the second instalment was payable at the time of registration of land in the name of individuals concerned. But it was all fraud and cheating because NAHIDCO had neither land nor any licence for constructing house. More than 384 persons bad been cheated in this manner by the Managing Director of NAHIDCO namely, M.R.Gupta alias M.R. Jyoti. As per further terms and conditions, if it failed to provide the dwelling units within' three years, it was bound to refund the entire amount along with 10% interest. He applied for refund of the amount after completion of three years on 17.9.1987 and requested Jyoti many. times to refund the same. Jyoti continued to make promises to refund in the last week of March, 1988 but had been absconding since February, 1988. Thus he requested appropriate action.

(3.) .During the course of investigation the prosecution attached the impugned properties because in spite of the fact that Jyoti bad been declared a proclaimed offender on 7.10.89, he did not surrender. His other three brothers, namely, Rakesh Gupta, Padam Raj Gupta and Harvinder Gupta, however, have been appearing during the course of proceedings.