REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Rahul Mathur Appellant

V/S

STATE OF M.P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
NAGAWWA VS. VEERANNA SHIVALINGAPPA KONJALGI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SWAPAN KUMAR GUHA:SANCHAITA INVESTMENTS [REFERRED TO]
PRATIBHA RANI VS. SURAJ KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
MADHAVRAO JIWAJIRAO SCINDIA VS. SAMBHAJIRAO CHANDROJTRAO ANGRE [REFERRED TO]
RUPAN DEOL BAJAJ MRS B R BAJAJ VS. KANWAR PAL SINGH GILL:STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
TRISUNS CHEMICAL INDUSTRY VS. RAJESH AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
ALPIC FINANCE LIMITED VS. P SADASIVAN [REFERRED TO]
KAMALADEVI AGARWAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
U DHAR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION VS. NEPC INDIA LTD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. PASTOR P RAJU [REFERRED TO]
INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [REFERRED TO]
ALL CARGO MOVERS INDIA PVT LTD VS. DHANESH BADARMAL JAIN [REFERRED TO]
B SURESH YADAV VS. SHARIFA BEE [REFERRED TO]
R KALYANI VS. JANAK C MEHTA [REFERRED TO]
SHARON MICHAEL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH CHOUDHARY VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
DALIP KAUR VS. JAGNAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JEFFREY J DIERMEIER VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. UJJAL KUMAR BURDHAN [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI VS. K.C. PALANISAMY [REFERRED TO]
RAJIB RANJAN VS. R. VIJAYKUMAR [REFERRED TO]
TEEJA DEVI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission.

(2.) This petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in Crime No.51/2016 registered by Police Station Morar, District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sec. 420, 34 of IPC.

(3.) The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition in short are that on 21.1.2016, the complainant Atisunder Singh lodged a FIR against the applicants alleging that the applicant No.1 is the owner and in possession of his ancestral house No.7, Ward No.25 situated in front of Maharani Laxmibai Girls School, Ajad Nagar, Garam Sadak, Morar, District Gwalior in which the applicant No.1 has th share. The applicants by expressing that they are in need of money for their business, entered into an agreement to sell th share in the property for a consideration of Rs. 50,00,000.00. The said amount of Rs. 50,00,000.00 was taken by the applicants in four instalments. However, after receiving the entire consideration amount, the applicants are not executing the sale deed and they have left their place of residence and their whereabouts are also not known. Even the applicants have shut their mobiles off as a result of which he is not in a position to contact them. Therefore, it appears that the applicants right from day one had an intention to cheat the complainant and their intention was to misappropriate an amount of Rs. 50,00,000.00. If the applicant No.1 had not given the assurance of executing the sale deed then the complainant would have never given the amount of Rs. 50,00,000.00 to them. On the basis of said complaint, police registered the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAHUL MATHUR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address