MANORMA VERMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case no.2201 of 2008 including the order dated 27.7.2009 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioners. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, case of the complainant needs to be taken notice of. According to the case of the complainant, he entered into an agreement with the petitioners for purchasing a flat bearing no.102 of "Anand Apartment" which was under construction. The complainant agreed to purchase the said flat for a total consideration amount of Rs.6,22,400/ - and out of that, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ - was paid through cheque on 6.4.2007. On payment of the said amount, an allotment letter was issued to the complainant on 27.10.2010. Thereupon the complainant insisted on to execute an agreement for sale but the accused persons avoided on one pretext or the other. Further case is that instead of executing an agreement of sale, the accused persons allotted the said flat no.102 to one Sanjeev Kumar. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the accused persons who had entered into a development agreement with the owner of the land has been litigating a case relating to Ceiling Act and over that piece of land, even Vigilance enquiry was going on. In spite of the petitioners entered into an agreement with the complainant for selling the flat.

(3.) MR .Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegations which have been made against the petitioners are that the petitioners in spite of entering into an agreement for selling a flat, did not give possession of the flat to the complainant. Assuming this allegation to be true, no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioners of cheating as the petitioners never made any misrepresentation to the complainant and thereby the question of committing offence under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code does not arise.