Delhi High Court
Sunil Bedi & Anr. vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 17 July, 2018
$~43 to 45 (common order)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 17th July, 2018
+ CRL.MC. 2773/2016 & CRL.M.A.11822/2016
SUNIL BEDI & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Vishal Gera &
Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the State
with SI Bharat Lal, PS Hauz Khas.
+ CRL.MC. 2784/2016 & CRL.M.A.11845/2016
KARAN BEDI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Vishal Gera &
Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the State
with SI Bharat Lal, PS Hauz Khas.
+ CRL.MC. 2785/2016 & CRL.M.A.11847/2016
PINKY BEDI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Vishal Gera &
Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Crl.M.C. 2773/2016, 2784/2016 & 2785/2016 Page 1 of 5
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the State
with SI Bharat Lal, PS Hauz Khas.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. By order dated 18.01.2016 of the Metropolitan Magistrate on
the complaint case (CC No.01/01/2013) of the second respondent
(the complainant), the petitioners in these matters were summoned
as accused to face criminal proceedings of accusations constituting
offence punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 120-B of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The said impugned order was
passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate after preliminary inquiry into
the complaint wherein pre-summoning evidence was adduced by the
complainant and pursuant to directions of the Magistrate under
Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the
police had carried out some investigation submitting a report based
thereupon.
2. The background facts, succinctly put are that the second
petitioner in the first captioned matter is a company engaged in the
business of developing real estate and had undertaken a commercial
project at Sector 62, village Nangali Umarpur, Tehsil & District
Gurgaon, Haryana, the other petitioners being its directors. The
complainant had statedly been induced to book a commercial space
in the said project for which payments were made by him in
October, 2007, it being alleged that the complainant was made to
believe that the project had all the necessary approvals, licences,
etc., a builder buyer agreement having been executed in the year
2009 with assurance that the project would be completed and
possession handed over within three years, but it being far from
completion till filing of the complaint and even thereafter when the
matter was under inquiry or being investigated into by the police.
The core ground on which the complainant would allege the offence
of cheating to have been committed is that the representation that
the project was covered by all necessary licences was false to the
knowledge of the petitioners since one of the crucial licences was
granted in the year 2009 only.
3. The present petitions have been filed invoking the inherent
jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to pray for the
quashing of the summoning order and the criminal complaint case
and are pressed on the ground that there is unimpeachable evidence
available to show that the second petitioner company had the
necessary licence from the Town and Country Planning Department
of the Govt. of Haryana, issued on 04.12.2007 (licence No.270 of
2007), reliance also being placed on another licence (licence No.2 of
2009) issued on 24.01.2009, copies of which documents have been
submitted (pages 30 to 34 of the paper book of the first captioned
petition).
4. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having
gone through the record, this court finds no reason for this court to
intervene at this stage of the process. The copy of the commercial
Premises Buyer's Agreement [Ex.CW1/C (colly)], copy whereof has
been submitted (pages 78 to 102 of the paper book of the first
captioned petition) which reveals that the land on which the project
in question was to be developed is described in the said document as
under:-
"(A) Shri Jagbir Singh Tanwar S/o Harbhajan Singh R/o
Village Chandanhula, New Delhi is the absolute owner and in
possession of land admeasuring 2.63775 acres comprising of
Khasra Nos.8//9(8-0), 11(8-0) and 12 MIN(5-02) and Shri
Rati Ram S/o Rupchand R/o Village & P.O. Tigra, District
Gurgaon (Haryana) is the absolute owner and in possession
of the land admeasuring 0.225 acres, comprising of Khewat
No.62/62, Khatoni No.95, Khasra Nos.9//15 MIN (1-16)
(hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Said Land"),
situated at village Nangali Umarpur, Tehsil & District
Gurgaon."
5. Though it does appear that the said Buyer's agreement was
executed on 03.04.2009, after the grant of the second licence on
24.01.2009, it cannot be ignored that part of the land concerning the
project was not covered by the first licence issued on 04.12.2007. In
these circumstances, where evidence has been shown of the
petitioners having obtained from the complainant, deposits of
consideration in 2007, there being no licence obtained respecting
part of the land covered by the project at that stage, representations
on the basis of which the complainant is stated to have been induced
to pay part of the money were prima facie false.
6. In the above facts and circumstances, it would be just and fair
that the issues of fact are left to be addressed by the trial court. This
court, thus, declines to intervene in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C
7. The petitions and the applications filed therewith stand
dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 17, 2018
vk
