SUMIT KHANEJA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is filed under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam,2005 (in short 'Adhiniyam,2005') being aggrieved by the order dated 28-03-2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in Misc.Cr.Case No. 584/2019 and also the order dated 28-03-2019 passed in W.P.No.26818/2018.

(2.) Misc.Cr.Case No.584/2019 was filed by one Mukesh Kumar Garg and others being aggrieved by the order dated 27-07-2018 passed in Criminal Case No.27997/2018 by which the application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by Mukesh Kumar Garg for direction to the police for proper investigation was rejected.

(3.) It is stated that W.P.No.26818/2018 was filed by one Rahul Sethi being aggrieved by the alleged delay caused by the respondent police authorities in completing the investigation ever after 12 months of lodging the FIR bearing Crime No.889/2017 dated 26-11-2017. It is submitted that the said FIR was lodged at the instance of complainant Mukesh Garg, in which Rahul Sethi portrayed himself as one of the aggrieved persons and further challenged the respondent police authorities for failing to take any action against the accused persons despite committing the offence. It is pleaded in the said petition that SVS Buildcon is a private limited company, in which the appellant nos. 1 and 2 are Directors and appellant no.3 is authorized signatory. It is stated that when SVS Buildcon ventured to develop the subject residential colony on the land bearing details as Khasra Nos. 552/2, 527/2, 553/1, measuring total of 7.17 hectares, village Bairagarh Chichli, Kolar Road, Bhopal, a Joint Venture Development Agreement was entered into between petitioner company and Khaneja Properties Pvt. Ltd. for development of residential colony on the aforesaid land, which was owned by Khaneja Properties as its land owner. It is further alleged in the said petition that a very organized fraud was played by the appellants with the member/purchasers of the respondent no.9 society. At the time of execution of tripartite agreement for grant of home loan, the appellants through various companies, like the SVS company acted in active collusion with the concerned banks, wherein without any collateral security, the aforesaid banks extended huge amount of loan facilities to their shell companies and its Directors. The home loans were sanctioned showing the purchasers as the actual beneficiaries of the loan amount.