NAMRATA CHOPRA Vs. ASHFAQ AHMED QURESHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for having the proceedings, pending as R.T. No. 13567/10, so far as it relates to the petitioners, before Shri Manoj Tiwari, JMFC, Bhopal, quashed. In that case, cognizance of the offence, under Section 420 of the IPC, has been taken upon the complaint made on 26.8.2010 by respondent nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'R1' and 'R2' respectively) against the petitioners as well as respondent nos. 3 and 4 (for short 'R3' and 'R4'), who are respectively father and brother of the petitioners. Allegations, as contained in the complaint, are that the petitioners had been able to cheat R1 and R2, who are builders and property developers, by deceiving into a belief that the land forming subject matter of the agreement to sell executed by them was free from all encumbrances and to induce them to part with a sum of Rs. 50 lacs as advance, knowing fully well that the land, being earmarked as parking space for the country club constructed by R3 and R4, could not be used for the purpose of construction.

(2.) According to the petitioners, their prosecution for the offence is an abuse of the process of the Court in view of the fact that at the time of entering into agreement to sell, they had no knowledge about the building permission obtained by R3 and R4 with whom their relations were strained in view of R4's bid to grab entire share of their mother Late Smt. Kamlesh Kapoor in the joint property under a so-called Will, that was apparently a forgery. They have further alleged that their decline to meet the unreasonable demands made by R1 and R2 had led to criminal proceedings in relation to a civil dispute. In support of these submissions, attention has been invited to the following facts-

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that while residing in their matrimonial homes located in Mumbai and Pune respectively, they were not expected to be aware of the fact that while obtaining permission from Municipal Corporation, R3 and R4 had proposed earmarking of the parcel of lands falling in their shares for the purpose of parking. Contents of paragraph 5 of the complaint have also been highlighted to buttress the contention that even after knowing much prior to 19.12.2009 that the land forming subject matter of the agreement to sell was to be left open as a parking place for country club, R1 and R2 had expressed intention to purchase the same by publishing a notice inviting objections to the proposed sale in a daily newspaper 'Dainik Bhaskar' on 22.4.2010 (Annex.P-7).