PUSHPA DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is against the order of summoning of the petitioner under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) M/s. Caravan Commercial Company Ltd. through its Director Mr. Ranjit Chopra filed a criminal complaint against the present petitioner and so also against others under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that an agreement of sale with regard to the property Nos. 42 and 44, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi was entered into between the .complainant and the accused persons 1 to 7 on an assurance by the accused persons that the property offered for sale was free from all encumberances and that there was no other subsisting agreement of sale with regard to the said property or any part thereof. It was alleged in the complaint that because of those assurances not only the agreement of sale was entered into but payments totalling around Rs. 66 lacs were also made and that later on it was revealed that accused 1 to 7had not only already entered into an agreement of sale with regard to the same property with one Arun Batra but that said Arun Batra had even filed a civil suit for Specific Performance. It was alleged by the complainant that this material 'fact was suppressed and that the suppression was intentional and that had it been made known to the complainant that the accused persons had already entered into an agreement of sale and that litigation with regard to the same in the form of a civil suit for specific performance was already pending it would neither have entered into the agreement of sale with the accused persons nor parted with Rs. 66 lacs. In support of the complaint, Ranjit Chopra, Director of the complainant company, examined himself as CWI. One Amit Judge was also examined as CW2. In those statements also it was specifically alleged that there was clear and unambiguous representation by the accused persons that the property was free from all encumberances and that there was no prior agreement of sale with regard to the said property. It is also in evidence that information with regard to pendency of the civil suit was suppressed and that had these facts been known, no agreement of sale would have been entered into by the complainant.

(3.) On the basis of the complaint and the evidence placed on the record the learned Metropolitan Magistrate came to the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out for summoning of the accused persons under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the said order accused No. 1 has preferred this revision petition.