No case of Cheating madeout on Cash Transactions without Documentary Evidence, Rules HC

Recently, the Delhi High Court examined a peculiar dispute where an alleged multi-crore property deal, carried out entirely on trust and cash payments, came under sharp judicial scrutiny.

The Petitioner claimed that he was induced by certain Respondents to purchase a property for Rs.6 crores, with promises of future gains. Acting on these assurances, he allegedly paid around Rs.4.39 crores in cash in several instalments, despite no formal agreement, such as an MOU or an Agreement to Sell, being executed. Subsequently, alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust, a complaint was filed under Sections 406, 420, 120B, and 34 IPC. However, both the Trial Court and the Revisional Court dismissed the complaint due to lack of credible evidence.

It was argued that witness testimonies and receipts sufficiently established inducement and payment. The absence of written agreements was justified on the basis of prior business relations and trust between the parties. Opposing this, the Respondents contended that the petition was not maintainable as it effectively amounted to a second revision. They further highlighted serious inconsistencies, including absence of any agreement, non-involvement of the actual property owner, and unreliable documentary proof.

The Court expressed strong doubt over the entire transaction and observed that “It is absolutely incomprehensible how a transaction of sale can be said to have been entered, into without dealing with the owner or even without looking at the property documents or executing some document in proof thereof.”

It further emphasised the necessity of proof in financial dealings that “No matter how close a relationship of trust… when it comes to the money transactions, it has to be corroborated by some cogent evidence.” The Court also noted that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked merely for re-appreciation of facts already considered by lower courts.

The High Court dismissed the petition, holding it to be not maintainable as a second revision and, in any case, devoid of merit due to lack of credible evidence and inherent improbabilities in the claim.

Case Title: NG Dev v. State & Ors.

Case No.: CRL.M.C. 1236/2017

Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocate

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State; Mr. M.N. Dudeja, Advocate

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com