DAULAT RAM GUPTA Vs. ALAKNANDA PROPERTIES P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above -captioned ten petitions have been preferred by petitioners -Daulat Ram Gupta (A -72), Rajmal Gupta (A -73), Jai Pal Singh (A -53), Ramesh (A -75), Bharam Singh (A -27), Brij Lal (A -34), Satpal (A -83), Krishna (A -61), Dharam Singh (A -36) and Virender (A -98) [accused numbers as provided by the trial court]. In the above -captioned ten petitions, quashing of complaint under Sections 192/218/383/386/405/ 409/420/423/425/426/427/441/447/451/463/468/503/506 of the IPC read with Section 120 -B of the IPC and Section 34 of the IPC is sought on the ground that there are no averments against petitioners, who are subsequent purchasers of the land in question and also on the ground that these criminal proceedings are lingering on for the last 13 years, but still are at the stage of pre -charge evidence.

(2.) AT the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners had submitted that these ten petitions arise out of the aforesaid complaint titled Alaknanda Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Balbir and Ors. (Annexure P -1) and continuance of criminal proceedings in respect of the complaint (Annexure P -1) is an abuse of the process of the court because the ingredients of the offence alleged are not made out against petitioners and on the subject matter of the instant criminal complaint, a civil suit (Annexure P -4) is also pending since the year 2001.

(3.) QUASHING of the aforesaid complaint is sought by learned counsel for petitioners while relying upon a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in CRL.M.C.4890/2005 titled Hitesh Bhardwaj v. Alaknanda Properties Pvt. Ltd. rendered on 1st October, 2007 whereby the complaint in question stands quashed qua co -accused -Hitesh Bhardwaj. Reliance was also placed upon another decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Ramesh Kumari and Anr. v. Alaknanda Properties (P) Ltd. 2010 SCC Online Del 4425 wherein this very complaint qua co -accusedRamesh Kumari and another already stands quashed on the ground of there being no specific averments against aforesaid co -accused. So, it was submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that on parity basis, the complaint in question deserves to be quashed qua petitioners as assertions against petitioners are quite vague in the pre -summoning evidence, whereas in the complaint in question, there are no specific averments against petitioners.