RAMAN KUMAR JUNEJA Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 09/2009 registered at PS Civil Lines for offences punishable under Sections 406/420/120B IPC.

(2.) In the above-noted FIR after investigation, charge-sheet was filed and vide order dated 3rd Feb., 2016 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed framing of charge for offences punishable under Sections 406/420/120B Penal Code against the petitioner which order was assailed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The criminal revision petition filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed by the impugned order dated 23rd April, 2016.

(3.) The allegations of the respondent No.2 in the FIR were that in Jan., 2008 property dealer Bipin Jain contacted him and informed that one property dealer Anish Kumar Gupta told him that the petitioner is the owner of double storeyed built-up property bearing No.20/2 with roof rights measuring 442 sq. yards, situated at Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi along with passage ownership rights with freehold rights of the land underneath and was looking for a buyer. Since the complainant was also interested in buying a residential property, a meeting was arranged wherein the petitioner claimed himself to be the absolute owner of the said property and that the property was free from all encumbrances. The complainant agreed to pay the property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 6,74,00,000.00. An agreement was entered into on 18th Jan., 2008 and part payment of Rs. 20,00,000.00 in cash and Rs. 60,00,000.00 by 2 cheques was paid. Since the agreement did not include 'ownership right over the passage' and only mentioned 'easement rights over the passage', therefore dispute arose. Therefore the payment by cheque was stopped. A fresh agreement was entered into and at the time of entering into the agreement dated 7th July, 2008 the petitioner and the property dealer Anish Gupta showed photocopies of certain documents, registered gift deed as well as Will, to show the petitioner's ownership right over the entire property as well as the passage, however the photocopies of the said documents were not provided stating that the same will be provided at the completion of the sale proceedings. A sum of Rs. 10,00,000.00 in cash and Rs. 60,00,000.00 by cheque was paid besides Rs. 20,00,000.00 in cash already paid. Though the sale deed was to be executed as per the agreement to sell dated 7th July, 2008 by 15th Aug., 2008 the time limit for execution of the sale deed was extended by 15th Sept., 2008 and again by 15th Oct., 2008, when the respondent No.2 came to know that the petitioner was not the absolute owner of the passage from the house to the Road. The petitioner misrepresented that he was the owner of the passage of the house on the main Road and induced the complainant to deliver Rs. 1.5 crores in all, till 7th Sept., 2008. He served legal notice dated 7th Oct., 2008 and asked the petitioner to return Rs. 3 crores as per the terms of agreement and filed the complaint on which the above-noted FIR was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.