DANVEER SINGHI Vs. RAJ A MENDA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision application arises out of the order dated 1.3.99 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Calcutta in Case No. C/104/99 under Section 420/120-B of I.P.C. By the order impugned the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to filing of the present revision application may briefly be stated as follows. The petitioner as complainant filed the petition of complaint under Section 420/120-B of I.P.C. against the accused persons who are presently the opposite parties. It has been alleged inter alia that sometimes in the last week of November/first week of December, 1991, accused No. 1 came to Calcutta and relying upon the representations and/or assurances given by accused No. 1 to Sri Ashok Kumar Poddar, a Director of the Company, A.M. Business and Finance Ltd. this Company had agreed to acquire Flat Nos. 301 and 302 on the 3rd floor of the Citadel at Koramangala, Bangalore. It was agreed by and between the parties that out of the total consideration a part would be paid for the purpose of acquiring the undivided proportionate share in the land and another part would be paid by way of construction cost. Accordingly two agreements were executed by and between the parties. In the meantime the complainant Sri Danveer Singh who is the Director of the said Company A.M. Business and Finance Ltd. came to know from a publication in the newspaper that the multi storied building constructed on the said premises commonly known as Citadel was ordered to be demolished by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka since the Hon'ble Court was of the view that the plan for construction of the said building should not have been sanctioned or the said building could not have been constructed at the said premises on which the complainant's flats have been situated. Further allegation of the complainant is that from the various newspaper reports it was noticed that the plan had not been lawfully sanctioned and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka directed for demolition of the entire building and it was well within the knowledge of the accused persons who suppressed the fact of the said order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and induced the, complainant to part with a large sum of money amounting to Rs. 25,05,477/- in pursuance of the said agreements.

(3.) In the impugned order the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has observed that the Company purchased two flats and got possession and after possession of the flats at Citadel, Bangalore, the complainant came to know that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed demolition order of the said building due to unauthorised construction. The learned Magistrate is of the view that cause of action arose at Bangalore and after possession of the flats at Citadal in Bangalore in 1996, the complainant came to the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to file the case against the accused persons in 1999. According to the learned Magistrate cause of action, if any, arose in Bangalore and not in Calcutta. Finding no sufficient ground for proceeding of the case the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C.