HEM CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed herein for quashing First Information Report (Annexure P-3) registered under Sections 406,415,420,467,468 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code instituted by respondent No. 4 with the Police Station Cannaught Place, New Delhi.

(2.) In brief the allegations made are that the petitioners herein, who are father and son, entered into an agreement to sell for land with respondent No. 4 and they came to know that this respondent has lodged an FIR against them with the Police Station, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The complaint filed narrated that respondent No. 4 has its office at 1004/1005, New Delhi House, 27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, was cheated by the two petitioners herein. The complainant was in need of some land for setting up a Textile Factory in Himachal Pradesh and the accused (petitioners) met the Director of the complainant and promised that they would transfer 61 Bighas 5 Biswas of land in Himachal Pradesh. They held themselves out to be influential persons who could get all the necessary permissions from the State Government for transfer of land more especially permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act which is a sine qua non for a valid transfer. An agreement dated 28th September, 2006 was entered into between the petitioners and respondent No. 4 when the total sale consideration agreed to was Rs. 7.35 crores, out of which an amount of Rs. 2,20,50,000/- was paid to the petitioner herein by cheque No. 297051, dated 28-9- 2006 drawn on the HDFC Bank, New Delhi. The receipt evidencing the payment (Annexure P-2) has been filed alongwith the complaint. The complaint then proceeds to state that a supplementary agreement was entered into between them wherein all the rights of respondent No. 4 were assigned to one Grafax Cotton Private Limited. The date and place where this agreement has been entered have not been mentioned.

(3.) The petitioners approached this Court praying for quashing the First Information Report on the ground that no offence is made out and that they were being unnecessarily harassed by respondent No. 4; criminal proceedings initiated are an abuse of the process of law. Notice was issued to the respondents on 12th March, 2007 and further proceedings were stayed. The order passed reads :-