SURENDER ARORA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sh.Surinder Arora has sought the quashing .of the First Information Report No.619/94 registered against him under Section 409, 467, 468,471, 474, 420 and 423 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) in P.S. Connaught Place, New Delhi, and the investigation conducted by the Crime Branch. Quashing, order has been sought, inter alia, on the grounds that the petitioner is the sole proprietor of M/s Liaison Consultancy Services, on 10th August,1984, Mr.H.S.Sandhu and his wife Smt.Shiela Sandhu constituted a private trust under the name and style of Satazo Trust with Sh.P.N.Mehta as Trustee for the benefit of their children. By a subsequent resolution Mr.H.S.Sandhu and Mrs.Shiela Sandhu resigned and Mrs.Sumitra Chisti became the trustee. In the capacity of a real Estate Agent, the petitioner negotiated for and on behalf of his client M/s Satazo Trust for the purchase of entire 11th floor, measuring 800 sq.ft. in the proposed multistoried building "Narain Manzil" 23, Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi. Negotiations were done with M/s Inder Pratap Singh and sons HUP. On 15th 0ctober,1992 Smt.Sumitra Chisti, applied to the said M/s Inder Pratap Singh, HUF for the allotment of said property. The aplication was signed by Smt.Sumitra Chisti as Trustee and the petitioner as estate agent. The builder agreed to sell the entire 11th floor to M/s Satazo Trust at the rate of Rs.3,850.00 per sq.ft. beside other levies. On 22nd 0ctober,1992 a statement of transfer of immoveable property was signed by Sh.inder Pratap Singh, HUF and Smt.Sumitra Chisti. The same was submitted to the appropriate authorities of Income Tax under Section 269 UC of Income Tax Act. The appropriate authority gave no objection to the transfer of the said property for a consideration of Rs.3.08 crores. Somewhere in February, 1994 the said Trustee Smt.Sumitra Chisti approached various property brokers because she decided to sell the complete 11th floor. She also indicated her intention to the petitioner for the sale of the said property. Petitioner agreed to purchase the entire 11th floor for a total consideration of Rs.4.84 crores, pursuance to which an agreement to sell was also executed between him and Mr.Sumitra Chisti. Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.4.84 lacs as part payment against the total consideration by cheque drawn on Sanwa Bank Ltd. and also informed the appropriate authorities about the transfer of the said property to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.4.84 crorers. The appropriate authority issued No Objection Certificate for the transfer of the abovesaid 11th floor in favour of the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that price of the property shoot up as a result of which Smt.Sumitra Chisti the trustee became dishonest. She tried to wriggle out of the agreement with the petitioner. To pressurise the petitioner, Sh.H.S.Sandhu threatened to cancel the agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner and offered to refund the amount. When the petitioner refused to oblige him, Mr.Sandhu threatened to liquidate and kidnap the petitioner. Petitioner was surprised to read public notice appearing in the Evening Newspaper on 15th July,1994, onbehalf of the Trust dis-owning the factum of any agreemnt in favour of the petitioner and warning the public not to have any negotiation with the petitioner for the purchase of the said property. This also showed that the Trust had become dishonest. Petitioner on 22nd July,1994 lodged the complaint before the DCP giving the history of the case and dispute between the parties. Petitioner sent a notice for and on behalf of the Trust calling upon to deliver the original documents. Petitioner filed a suit in the High Court praying for declaration and injunction regarding the agreement pertaining to the said property. However, on 15th 0ctober,1994 a case was registered on the complaint of Sh.H.S.Sandhu, former Trustee of M/s Satazo Trust against the petitioner which is the FIR in question.

(2.) According to petitioner false allegations have been levelled against him by Sh.H.S.Sandhu in his complaint which is the basis of the FIR in question. He in fact was acting as property dealer on behalf of the Trust in various transactions and that he was in possession of the original documents of properties of the Trust. Trust wanted tosell this property for which purpose original document was handed over to the petitioner. However,to implicate the petitioner it has falsely been alleged in the complaint that the petitioner represented that he had prospective buyer and put up the draft agreement for sale before H.S.Sandhu, obtained his signatures by falsely presenting the facts. Further on the same day the petitioner without the knowledge of Mr.Sandhu took another draft agreement to Smt.Sumitra Chisti and obtained her signatures without disclosing to her that it was in fact an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner. She signed it on the misrepresentation made by the petitoner that the draft had already been approved by Mr.H.S.Sandhu. Accepting this version she signed the agreement without reading. Thus the allegation of the prosecution was that the petitioner was trying to sell the property of the Trust as his own property and, therefore, . public through newspaper was made aware that the documents signed with the appropriate authorities were forged by the petitioner. It has further been alleged in the complaint that there was no account of the Trust where amount of Rs.l.5 lacs had been paid as earnest money. That the petitioner gave wrong address of the Trust to the appropriate authorities. In fact he never paid any consideration with respect to the property in question. Thus complainant tried to build up a case against the petitioner of cheating, breach of trust by fraudulently inducing Smt.Sumitra Chisti to sign on the agreement to sell and thus commited the offence charged against him. On the complaint of Mr.H.S.Sandhu petitioner was arrested by the Crime Branch on 15th 0ctober,1994. He has been released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on 19th 0ctober,1994.

(3.) It is in this background that the present petition has been filed challenging further investigation and the averments of the FIR, inter alia, on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint are totally false and baseless. On the basis of evidence and documents available on record, no case has been made out against the petitioner as alleged in the FIR. In fact it is the complainant who was guilty for filing false reports and creating false evidence against the petitioner. On the basis of this false complaint petitioner has been given mental torture. Moreover, the Trust has not been deprived of the property nor the possession has been passed on to the petitioner and that the signature on the agreement to sell are genuine signatures of Smt.Sumitra Chisti. As regards misrepresentation these are only allegations. Similarly there are counter allegations. Hence the petitioner could not be charged. Investigating agency has not been able to find out any evidence against the petitioner which could forcify the allegations made by the complainant Mr.H.S.Sandhu. Rather the evidence collected by the police substantiate the facts stated by the petitioner that Mr.H.S.Sandhu and others have fabricated the evidence against him to lodge a false report. Investigation on the complaint of Mr.H.S.Sandhu has been kept pending to pressurise the petitioner to cancel the agreement dated 13th March,1994, though investigating agency is fully satisfied that no case has been made out. It is in this background that the further investigation and the FIR lodged against the petitioner has been sought to be quashed.