NILESH AJMERA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been filed by the petitioners Nilesh Ajmera s/o Pawan Ajmera and Jitendra Kumar Dhawan s/o S.P. Dhawan for quashment of First Information Report and all consequential proceedings with regard to Crime No. 563/2016 registered at Police Station Banganga, Indore District Indore (MP) against the petitioners and other co-accused persons for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) As per charge sheet filed in Crime No. 563/2016, a written compliant was filed by one Mrs. Alka Chittoda on 29.06.2016 against Chirag Shah and Nikul Kapasi regarding the act of cheating and fraud committed by them in selling a plot to the complainant in Kalindi Gold City Colony situated at Sanwer, Tahsil Sanwer, District Indore (MP). During the course of investigation, the prosecution received 22 complaints by other complainants who had the same grievance of being cheated in purchasing the plot in Kalindi Gold City. As per complaint, accused persons induced them to purchase the plots in Kalindi Gold City and cheated them by taking money from them and not giving them their plots or not getting the plots registered in their names. It is also alleged that the accused persons took money from them and did not give them any receipt of the same and also took unrecorded money from them in the name of development charges. In spite of taking entire plot value from them, the accused persons did not allot plots to the complainants and thereby cheated them. The allegations against some accused persons is that they forged general power of attorney of some farmers and sought permission from the concerned authorities to develop the colony.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the allegations made in the FIR are taken at its face value and accepted in its entirety, they do not constitute any offence against him. He did not execute any sale deed. Moreover, there is no allegation that he ever acted in his personal capacity for the act of the company. The petitioner cannot be held personally liable, in the offences of legal fiction. The only averment in the FIR is, regarding the non-fulfillment of promise, which does not constitute for offence under Section 420, IPC. No mens rea is inducted on the part of the petitioner from the alleged allegations made in the FIR. He is not alleged to have forged any document. Thus, no offence can be said to be committed under Sections 468 and 467, IPC nor any offences punishable under Section 431, 432, 201 and 120-B of IPC are made out from the allegations made in the FIR and the charge-sheet and prayed for quashment of the FIR No. 563/2016 and charge-sheet dated 07.10.2016, filed against the petitioner.