Sh.M.L.Baghel vs State/Nct Of Delhi
2014 Latest Caselaw 2368 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     CRL.M.C. No. 2218/2014

                               Date of decision: 09th May, 2014

      SH. M.L. BAGHEL                      ..... Petitioner
                    Through:          Mr. Vinay Mohan Sharma, Adv.


                         versus
      STATE/NCT OF DELHI                          ..... Respondent
                    Through:          Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for the
                                      State

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH

      VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)

Crl.M.A. No. 7453/2014(exemption) The application is allowed subject to just exceptions. Application is disposed of accordingly.

Crl.M.C. No. 2218/2014

1. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 2.1.2014 passed by learned District & Session Judge, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby revision petition bearing Crl.Rev. No.293/13 titled `M.L. Baghel vs. State/NCT of Delhi' filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for the offences under Section 415/416/419/420/ 463/464/466/468/469/471/506/120B IPC against the prospective sixteen accused persons on the allegations, inter alia, that the

petitioner entered into an agreement to sell dated 20.12.2004 with Mr. Raghuvinder Singh in respect of plot No.184, 185, 248, 249, 250 and 251 in Block B under Khasra No.73, measuring 1168 sq. Yds. situated within the revenue estate of Village Neb Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi for a total consideration of Rs.1,12,96,000/- (Rupees one crore twelve lakhs and ninty six thousand). The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.22.00 lakhs (Rupees twenty two lakhs) towards earnest money. 50% of the remaining consideration amount was to be paid by 15.1.2005 and the remaining balance was to be paid by 15.3.2005, as per the agreement/Bayana Receipt dated 20.12.2004, executed by Raghuvinder Singh. At the time of execution of agreement to sell, Mr. Raghuvinder Singh handed over a copy of the agreement/Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.10.2004 purportedly executed between Mr. Raghuvinder Singh and the prospective sellers i.e. prospective accused No.2 to 16 in favour of accused no. 1 in respect of the said land to the petitioner.

3. It was alleged that earlier accused no. 1 had sought time for registration of sale deed in respect of land in question and demanded the remaining payment from the petitioner. However, in the first week of November 2006, despite repeated requests, accused no. 1 refused to refund the money paid by the petitioner. The petitioner `smelt rat' and made inquiries and came to know that the property in question was the subject of investigation in two FIR's i.e. FIR No. 110/2005 under Sections 415/418/419/420/448/506 and 511 IPC registered at P.S. Mehrauli, New Delhi and FIR No. 24/2006 under Sections 415/416/419/420/463/464/466/468/ 469/471/ 506/120B /34 IPC lodged by Supreme Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. and Smt.

Chander Mukhi respectively. The petitioner also alleged that accused No.1 had entered into an agreement to sell and had received part payment/earnest money in conspiracy and connivance with the other accused persons. Accused No.1 neither executed the sale deed nor refunded the amount paid by the petitioner, instead extended threats to the petitioner. An application seeking directions to police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was also filed by the petitioner.

4. Vide order dated 6.8.2013, learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi dismissed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as well as the complaint filed by the petitioner.

5. The petitioner preferred Crl.Rev. No.293/2013 which was dismissed by learned District & Sessions Judge (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi vide impugned order dated 02.1.2014.

6. Aggrieved by the said order dated 02.1.2014, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused No.1 in collusion with accused No.2 to 16 had cheated the petitioner. Further accused No.1 had entered into an agreement to sell with the petitioner on 20.12.2004. The accused No.1 had neither executed the sale deed nor refunded the amount of earnest money paid by the petitioner.

8. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner in the light of facts and circumstances of the case.

9. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the proposed accused Raghuvinder Singh did not execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement despite repeated persuasions by the petitioner.

Learned District and Sessions Judge as well as the trial court have rightly observed that the complaint does not make out any `cognizable offence', for the reason that the petitioner knew that Mr. Raghuvinder Singh did not have any title in the property. He had entered into an agreement to sell with the clear knowledge that transfer of the property would be dependent on the other accused conveying the right, title and interest to Mr. Raghuvinder Singh.

10. It can be seen that there is a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protects the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.

11.It is settled law that if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. The criminal proceedings are not a shortcut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process, a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. The summoning of an accused is a serious matter. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

12.In the instant case the petitioner has averred in the complaint that copy of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.10.2004 executed between accused No.1 and accused No.2 to 16 was handed over to the petitioner at the time of agreement to sell dated 20.12.2004. This shows that the petitioner was fully aware that accused No.1 was not the owner of the property, which he had agreed to sell to the petitioner and there was no misrepresentation regarding the absence of title in regard to the said property in favour of accused No.1, Mr. Raghuvinder Singh.

13. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

14.The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

V.P.VAISH, J MAY 09, 2014 aj