ARVIND AGGARWAL Vs. UNITECH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of the criminal proceedings emanating from the FIR No. 27/93 under Sections 406/420/468/471/120-B, Indian Penal Code registered at the P.S. Malviya Nagar and pending on the file of the M.M. Delhi.

(2.) The petitioner and his wife are partners of M/s. Shilpi Modes and Directors of M/s. Shilpi Modes (Pvt.) Ltd. In the month of October, 1991, both the petitioners approached the complainant M/s. Unitech (for short 'the complainant Company') and falsely represented that they were owner of 67 acres of land in village Gawal Pahari and 40 acres of land in Hyderpur, Distt. Gurgaon (Punjab) and induced the complainant to enter into an agreement to develop the said land. Thus, the petitioners fraudulently obtained a sum of more than Rs. 40 lacs from the complain- ant. It is alleged that the petitioners also forged certain sale deeds in respect of the aforesaid lands and thereby cheated the complainant. On 27.1.1993, a report regarding the alleged cheating was lodged at the P.S. Malviya Nagar. Investigation pursuant thereto culminated in submission of the charge sheet under Sections 406/ 420/468/471/120-B, Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

(3.) The petitioners seek quashing of the criminal proceedings emanating from the impugned FIR mainly on the following grounds: (i) that the foundation of the FIR is the contract between the parties as memorandum of understanding which is actually a single venture partnership agreement dated 7.10.1991. This agreement has also been admitted by the complainant Company in their letter dated 5.11.1991. Both these vital documents have been supressed by the Investigating Agency, which vitiates the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners; (ii) that by a supplementary memorandum of understanding, the lands of Gwalpahari village had been excluded from the original agreement and this fact had deliberately suppressed by the complainant; (iii) that the transaction between the parties is of civil nature and does not attract criminal liability. The petitioners have already filed the Civil Suit No. 2084/95 against the complainant and the complainant Com- pany has also filed the Civil Suit No. 2497 of 1994 against the petitioners in respect of the agreement in question. In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed.