DEEPAK SACHDEV Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.160, dtd. 29/12/2015, registered under Ss. 420, 465, 466, 467, 471 of IPC, including report submitted under Sec. 173, at Police Station Division No.3, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) The FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of one Yogita Puri wife of Vikas Anand with the allegation that the Company, named Ansal Highway Plaza had developed a commercial mall on Jalandhar-Phagwara G.T.Road Highway. The said mall consisted of various commercial sites and accommodations available therein. The petitioners herein advertised and represented to her and to the general public as well, that all the shops/sites in the aforesaid mall, have already been leased out to the different tenants and that paying of the rent to the purchasers of shops/sites would immediately start after allotment of the site in question. On the above said representation of the Company and representation by the present petitioners, the complainant evinced interest in purchasing shop in the said mall. On her showing interest in purchasing the site in the said mall, to further instill more confidence in the complainant, the petitioners and the Company Executives repeatedly visited her house and offered her the commercial space bearing No. SSF-06B measuring 1572 square ft. situated on the second floor of the said mall for a total sale consideration of Rs.85.00 lakhs. The petitioners herein, who were working as the Executives of the Company, represented to the complainant that the site offered to the complainant had already been rented out to one Femella Fashion Private Limited and that after deduction of TDS, the complainant shall get Rs.64,660.00 per month, as rent from the day one. It was further assured by the petitioners that the complainant would continue to get the rent in perpetuity and therefore, the petitioners shall have a fixed income against the investment made by her. Believing the representations made by the Executives of the Company as well as the Director of the Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, the complainant had purchased the above said unit No. SSF-06B measuring 1572 square ft. in the said mall for a sale consideration of Rs.85.00 Lakhs. It was further alleged in the FIR that after issuance of the allotment letter, the complainant had been handed over as many as 17 cheques of Rs.64,660.00 each, issued by Femella Fashion Private Limited. This was done by the petitioners herein to assure the complainant that the premises in question had, in fact, been occupied by some tenant. Thereafter, some cheques were handed over by another Company named Ritesh Properties and Industries Private Limited for an amount of Rs.68,774.00 as the rent. It is further alleged that the complainant had not inducted any tenant on the said premises, nor, at any stage, she had been informed regarding the change of tenants. Still further, it is alleged that after 15/5/2010, the complainant did not receive any cheque on account of the payment of rent. Therefore, the complainant got suspicious about the representation made by the petitioners. The complainant had made an investment only on the assurance of the petitioners and of the Company that it would be the responsibility of the company to ensure that the premises is rented out and Mall is in operation in perpetuity. However, when the payment of rent was stopped then the complainant made enquiries at the spot and came to know that as a matter of fact, the unit purchased by the complainant had neither been occupied by the Femella Fashion Private Limited nor the same had ever been occupied by the Ritesh Properties & Industries Limited. Rather garbage and debris was lying on the site. Hence, it become clear that some cheques, mentioned above, were being issued only at the instance of the Mall Company i.e. Ansal Properties & Infrastructures Limited, just to show that the commitment made by them at the time of selling the unit, regarding the assured rent, were genuine and that there has been no misrepresentations on their part. When the complainant stopped receiving any cheque or rent, then she contacted one Monica, in the office of the aforesaid Company. However, all the times, she was very evasive in her replies. Further allegation of the complainant in the FIR is that at the time of purchase of this property, it was assured that the property would be maintained by the Company through out. However, in the month of February, 2014, when the complainant went to the aforesaid mall, she found the same to be totally locked and there was no maintenance apparent, anywhere. On the basis of these allegations, the FIR came into existence against the petitioners.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after the investigation even the police had come to a conclusion that no offence was committed by the petitioners. The police had also found that there was no clause in the allotment letter to the effect that rent was to be paid to the complainant in perpetuity. However, despite the Investigating Officer coming to the conclusion that no offence is made out, the challan has been filed only on the advice of the District Attorney working in the office of Superintendent of Police. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further referred to the allotment letter, attached with the present petition at Annexure P-8, to substantiate his above said submission that no such promise to ensure rent in perpetuity was ever made by the Company. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the complainant had even sold her 50% share in the above said property to one Seema Arora on 11/11/2008. He further submitted that the FIR is lodged after five years of stoppage of the rent, therefore, the case of the complainant is misuse of process of Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that although there are certain statements recorded by the police under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. to the effect that the representations, mentioned in the FIR, were; in fact, made by the petitioners, however, the said statements are made by the interested witnesses who are relatives of the complainant.