[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Amit Goyal vs State & Anr on 9 February, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 30th October, 2025
Pronounced on: 09th February, 2026
+ CRL M.C. 4560/2018
AMIT GOYAL
S/O LATE SH. J.G. GOYAL
R/O H.NO. 32/103, FIRST FLOOR,
SEGTOR-3, ROHINI, DELHI
......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Jugal Bagga, Mr. Atin Chadha,
Ms. Munisha Chadha, Mr. Harjas
Singh Chhatwal and Mr. Dhruv
Tomar, Advocates.
versus
1. STATE
THROUGH STANDING COUNSEL,
CHAMBER N0.442,
DELHI HIGH COURT,
NEW DELHI-110003
2. BALDEV SAPRA
S/O LATE SH. C.D. SAPRA
R/O D-105, VIKAS PURI,
DELHI-110018
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP with
Inspector Govind Singh.
+ CRL.M.C. 2843/2023, CRL.M.A. 10670/2023
DHARMENDER YADAV
S/O - Late Shri Dev Dutt Yadav
R/O - H.No. A- 2/ 48, Hastal Road,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi
......Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS CRL M.C. 4560/2018 & CRL M.C. 2843/2023 Page 1 of 20
ARORA
Signing Date:11.02.2026
16:01:13
Through: Mr. Salman Hashmi, Ms. Sana
Hashmi, Mr. Zeeshan Hashmi and
Mr. Sheezan Hashmi, Advocates.
versus
1. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
S.H.O., P.S. Uttam nagar
2. BALDEV SAPRA
S/O LATE SH. C.D. SAPRA
R/O D-105, VIKAS PURI,
DELHI-110018 .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP with
Inspector Govind Singh. Mr. Amit
Chadha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jugal
Bagga, Mr. Atin Chadha, Ms.
Munisha Chadha, Mr. Harjas Singh
Chhatwal and Mr. Dhruv Tomar,
Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The aforesaid two Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") on
behalf of the Petitioners/Amit Goyal and Dharmender Yadav seeking
quashing of FIR No. 229/2013 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B/34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") registered at
P.S. Uttam Nagar.
Case of the Complainant/Respondent No.2:
2. The brief facts of the case as per Respondent No.2/Complainant,
Baldev Sapra, are that he has been manufacturing pressure cookers in his
factory at Uttam Nagar, Delhi, for over 25 years. During this time, he
developed close relations with local residents, including
Petitioner/Dharmender Yadav, whom he had known for nearly 20 years. It
is stated that about 1.5 years prior to the Complaint, the Complainant shifted
his factory to Hastsal Industrial Area. Even after the shift,
Petitioner/Dharmender Yadav, continued to visit him frequently.
3. It is stated that Petitioner/Dharmender Yadav introduced the
Complainant to one, Deepak Goel, resident of Rohini, a property dealer,
who along with his associates and his wife, Mrs. Chanchal Goel, regularly
visited the Complainant and gradually gained his trust. The Complainant
was shown Deepak Goel's office, staff including Sushil Sati, Mukesh Meena
and Neha), documents, and properties, all of which created an impression of
a well-established and genuine property business.
4. It is further stated that in October 2011, Deepak Goel, with
assurances from Petitioner/Dharmender Yadav, proposed the sale of his
residential property at Pocket H-32, Sector-3, Rohini. Upon inquiring
about the sale, Deepak Goel stated that he would soon be moving out of this
property to a Kothi. Trusting the representations of Deepak Goel and
assurances from Petitioner/Dharmender Yadav, the Complainant agreed to
purchase the ground floor and third floor with roof rights for a total
consideration of Rs. 1.38 crore. At the moment, the Complainant also gave
Rs.15 Lakh as advance amount/bayana. On 15.10.2011, the Complainant
further gave them Rs.30 Lakh in cash. After that on 20.10.2011, the
Complainant gave Rs.25 Lakh in cash. Furthermore, on 24.10.2011, the
Complainant handed over the balance payment of Rs.38 Lakh to Deepak
Goel in front of Petitioner/Dharmender Yadav through Cheque No. 750706
drawn on ICICI Bank Rajouri Garden.
5. It is further stated that the Complainant along with Deepal Goel,
Petitioner/Dharmender Yadav and their associated went to the Sub-
Registrar's office where signatures, thumb impressions, and formalities were
completed. Sale deeds were later handed over. The Sub-Registrar confirmed
about the money transaction from the Complainant and Deepak Goel.
6. Thereafter, upon reaching the office of Deepak Goel, the Complainant
handed over the entire previous chain of documents. There, Deepak Goel got
the Complainant introduced through his phone, to one Amit Goel who
claimed himself Deepak Goel's brother, who confirmed that the papers are
absolutely fine and Partition deed has been made between the two brothers.
7. Amit Goel confirmed that First floor and Second floor, are in his
name, while the Ground floor and Third floor with roof right, is in the name
of Deepak Goel.
8. Subsequently, Deepak Goel and Dharmender Yadav persuaded the
complainant to purchase four additional floors belonging to Yamini
Aggarwal, Deepak Goel's sister-in-law, in Rohini. The total consideration
ran into several crores. The Complainant paid large sums as earnest money
and further instalments through cash and cheques. Sale deeds were shown as
executed, and original documents were handed over.
9. Thereafter, in January 2012, the Complainant, through his Company,
Sapra Impex (P) Ltd, purchased another property at Pocket 4A, Sector-23,
for Rs. 1.5 crore, again based on representations made by Deepak Goel and
Petitioner/Dharmender Yadav. The property was later, allegedly sold by
Deepak Goel for a total sum of Rs. 4.11 crore, out of which Rs.1.5 crore
was transferred to the Complainant's Company, while the remaining amount
was promised at the time of final sale deed, which never materialized.
10. Despite repeated follow-ups, Deepak Goel and Petitioner/Dharmender
Yadav avoided execution of sale deeds and payment of remaining amounts.
Upon verification from the Sub-Registrar's office, the Complainant
discovered that the documents were forged.
11. Thus, it is stated that Deepak Goel, Petitioner/Dharmender Yadav,
Yamini Aggarwal, Manoj S/o Shyam Prasad, Sushil Sati, Chanchal Gael
W/o Deepak Goel, Mukesh Meena, Rahul Gupta, Neha and Petitioner/Amit
Goel, brother of Deepak Goel have cheated the Complainant and gained
crores of Rupees, by making fake papers & e-Stamp papers, thereby also
causing loss to the Government.
12. The FIR No. 229/2013 was lodged under Section
468/34/471/420/467 IPC at P.S. Uttam Nagar.
Contentions of the Petitioner, Amit Goyal:
13. It is submitted that the Petitioner/Amit Goyal, is a law-abiding citizen
and is residing at House No. 32/103, First Floor, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi.
14. It is submitted that the said FIR was lodged by the Respondent
No.2/Complainant against the Petitioner's brother and his associates. The
Petitioner had no concern whatsoever with the alleged property transaction
between his brother and the Complainant and was neither involved in nor
responsible for the preparation of any alleged forged document.
15. Although the Petitioner was named as an accused in the FIR, the
Chargesheet filed before the Court of the Ld. MM placed his name in
Column No. 11 of the main Chargesheet.
16. The Complainant and the Petitioner's brother, Mr. Deepak Goyal,
were business partners engaged in real estate ventures in Jaipur, other parts
of Rajasthan and Delhi. As per the prosecution case itself, both were
Directors and shareholders in three Companies, namely M/s S & G
Innovators Pvt. Ltd., M/s Suma Build Tech Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Corporate
Textile Pvt. Ltd. The present FIR dated 07.05.2013 was registered pursuant
to a Complaint dated 18.04.2013 filed by Mr. Baldev Sapra under Sections
420/467/468/471/120-B/34 IPC against the Petitioner's brother and other
accused persons including the Petitioner.
17. It is submitted that after a lapse of more than four years, a
supplementary Chargesheet dated 19.08.2017 was filed only with respect to
co-accused Mukesh Meena. Notably, the said supplementary Chargesheet
does not reflect any pending investigation against the Petitioner.
18. The Petitioner was arrested on 15.07.2018 and produced before the
Ld. MM. On the same day, the dispute between the Petitioner and the
Complainant was amicably settled for a sum of Rs. 23,00,000/-.
Furthermore, the Petitioner thereafter filed his second Bail Application
before this Hon'ble Court. Taking note of the settlement between the parties,
this Court extended interim protection to the Petitioner till 26.09.2018 and
granted liberty to move an appropriate application in terms of the
Complainant's statement recorded on 15.07.2018.
19. Thus, the Petitioner has preferred the present Petition seeking
quashing of the FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom, on the grounds
that the dispute between the Complainant and the Petitioner stands amicably
settled, as recorded in the statement of the Complainant before the Ld. MM.
The Petitioner was earlier arrested and released on interim bail till
encashment of the cheque/DD issued to the Complainant. The entire settled
amount of Rs.23,00,000/- has now been paid, and no amount remains
outstanding. After full settlement and payment, continuation of criminal
proceedings against the Petitioner would serve no purpose and would result
in unnecessary incarceration and harassment.
20. It is also submitted that the Chargesheet as well as supplementary
Chargesheets have been filed and the investigation stands completed.
21. Furthermore, even after a detailed investigation, no specific role has
been attributed to the Petitioner except that he allegedly spoke to the
Complainant over the phone. Even as per the Prosecution's case, the
Petitioner only stated that he was the owner of the 1st and 2nd floors, while
the co-accused Deepak Goyal owned the ground and 3rd floors, which is
correct. The floors owned by the Petitioner, are not the subject matter of the
present FIR.
22. The Petitioner has been regularly appearing before the Ld. Trial Court
since 2013 and has already faced trial proceedings for more than five years,
causing him considerable hardship.
23. Reliance is placed on Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012)
10 SCC 303, which clearly recognizes the power of the High Court to quash
criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable offences where the dispute
is predominantly civil in nature and stands fully settled, and where
continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
Contentions of the Petitioner, Dharmender Yadav:
24. It is submitted that the allegations in the Complaint are that the
Complainant purchased certain properties through one Deepak Goel, who
was introduced by the Petitioner to the Complainant and allegedly, he acted
as a broker. It is alleged that forged sale deeds and e-stamps were used and
that the Sale Deeds were not actually registered.
25. It is submitted that during the Petitioner's Bail proceedings, the
parties entered into a settlement before the Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari
Courts, on 17.09.2013, pursuant to which the Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.
30,00,000/- to Respondent No.2/Complainant. As per Clause 8 of the
Settlement, Respondent No.2 agreed to cooperate and give no objection to
the quashing of the FIR after receipt of the settled amount. Furthermore,
Clause 9 of the Settlement clearly provides that no dispute shall survive
between the parties and that no further proceedings shall be pursued in
relation to the subject FIR.
26. The Petitioner was granted Bail vide Order dated 25.02.2014, wherein
the settlement and the statement of Respondent No.2 were duly recorded.
Despite full compliance by the Petitioner, Respondent No.2 has failed to
cooperate or give consent for quashing of the FIR.
27. It is submitted that the conduct of Respondent No.2 in continuing the
criminal proceedings despite settlement, is contrary to the terms of the
agreement and amounts to abuse of the process of law.
28. The Petitioner has already returned the alleged wrongful gain, and
therefore, no purpose would be served by continuation of the proceedings.
The settlement also received judicial recognition through the Bail Order
dated 25.02.2014 passed by the Ld. ASJ, West District, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi. On 27.09.2022, the Petitioner applied for a certified copy of the
complainant's statement recorded before the Mediation Centre.
29. The grounds seeking quashing are that the dispute has been amicably
settled and the Petitioner has fulfilled all obligations under the settlement.
Moreover, Respondent No.2 is bound by the settlement, to cooperate in
quashing of the FIR.
30. Status Report has been filed by the Respondent/State wherein the
facts of the Complaint are reiterated. It is stated that the cheating of Rs.30
crore took place in a very organized manner under the leadership of Deepak
Goyal, who is the main master mind and head of the gang. Furthermore,
more than 100 forged stamps of different government offices/officers, were
recovered from the possession of Deepak Goyal.
31. It is also submitted that the accused Deepak Goyal, brother of the
Petitioner had already sold the ground floor of the property No. H-32/103,
Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi to one, Rajender Singhal prior to the deal with the
Complainant.
32. Furthermore, the Petitioner/Amit Goyal, is the brother of the main
accused Deepak Goel.
33. The Petitioner/Amit Goyal hatched conspiracy with his brother
Deepak Goyal (co-accused) persons. Several set of partition deeds
pertaining to the property No. H-32/103 Sector-3, Rohini Delhi were
prepared on the e-stamps papers of same serial number. These Partition
Deeds were submitted before Dena Bank at Maya Puri Branch, Punjab and
Singh Bank at Peera Garhi Branch and State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur at
New Rohtak Road, New Delhi for obtaining loan, prior to the dealing with
Complainant. At the time of dealing with Complainant, these papers were
still mortgaged with the concerned bank.
34. The role of the Petitioner, Amit Goyal is detailed as under:
a. A partition deed was executed between Deepak Goyal and
the Petitioner and was registered at the office of Sub-
Registrar, Pitampura, Delhi. Upon comparison of the
certified copy obtained from the Sub-Registrar with certified
copies received from Dena Bank, Punjab & Sindh Bank, and
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, it was revealed that the
petitioner, in connivance with main accused Deepak Goyal,
prepared multiple sets of partition deeds on similar stamp
paper numbers. The partition deeds submitted to the banks
and the complainant were not identical to the registered
deed. These forged partition deeds were used for mortgage
and inducement purposes. The Petitioner had already availed
loan from State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, New Rohtak
Road Branch, by mortgaging the property documents prior
to dealing with the Complainant.
b. Several partition deeds were submitted to different banks,
and one such deed was also handed over to the complainant
on the same e-stamp paper number, clearly indicating
forgery not only of the partition deeds but also of the e-
stamp papers used therein.
c. The 1st and 3rd floors of property No. H-32/103, Sector-3,
Rohini, Delhi were mortgaged with State Bank of Bikaner
and Jaipur, New Rohtak Road, since 07.01.2010 by Shri
Amit Goyal, proprietor of Ridhi Cosmetic, with an
outstanding MOD balance of Rs. 83,67,590/-.
d. The Petitioner and his brother Deepak Goyal prepared and
executed four forged partition deeds in respect of the said
property and on their basis availed loans from (i) State Bank
of Bikaner and Jaipur, (ii) Punjab & Sindh Bank, Peera
Garhi, and (iii) Dena Bank, Mayapuri. Despite subsisting
mortgages, the said floors were sold to the complainant.
e. The Petitioner actively assured the complainant that the
partition deeds were duly executed, genuine, and that the
title was clear. This being the first transaction between the
parties, such assurance is recorded in the FIR itself.
35. Furthermore, the Petitioner had full knowledge of and actively
participated in all transactions between the Complainant and co-accused.
The cheated amount was credited into the personal account of the Petitioner
and accounts of Companies wherein his brother, mother, and other family
members were directors.
36. The Petitioner is charged with serious offences, including Section 467
IPC, punishable up to life imprisonment.
37. Furthermore, the Petitioner/Dharmender Yadav is named in the FIR
and a specific role has been attributed to him therein. He acted in
connivance with co-accused, Deepak Goyal and others, to cheat the
complainant and to fabricate forged documents.
38. The Petitioner/Dharmender Yadav is a beneficiary of the cheated
amount.
39. Seven accused were declared absconders vide order dated 31.01.2018
and four accused were declared proclaimed offenders vide order dated
26.07.2018, including Smt. Santosh Kumari, mother of the Petitioner
(proceedings abated). Co-accused Deepak Goyal, brother of the
Petitioner/Amit Goyal, was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated
20.02.2019 passed by the learned ACMM, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, and
is presently in judicial custody.
40. Ld. Trial Court (JMFC-08, South-West, Dwarka Courts) vide order
dated 19.07.2024 framed charges against accused Deepak Goyal, Hemant,
and Anil under Sections 420, 120-B, 34, 467, 468, 471 IPC, and against
Chanchal Goyal under Sections 420, 120-B, 34 IPC.
41. Lastly, to sum up, it is submitted that the nature of allegations, are
serious wherein charges of forgery of stamps and sale deeds.
Submissions heard and record perused.
42. The Chargesheet had been filed against Petitioners/Amit Goyal and
Dharmender Yadav along with other accused under Sections
420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC.
Case of the Petitioner, Amit Goyal:
43. As per Chargesheet, the allegations against Petitioner/Amit Goyal are
as under:
"... There, Deepak Goel had arranged a talk with a person whose
name he told me was Amit Goel, and told me that he is the brother of
Deepak Goel. He also told me that the papers are all correct.
A partition deed has been executed between us. Amit Goel told me that
the first and second floor are in his name, and the ground and third
floor with roof right are in the name of Deepak Goel.
Deepak Goel has delivered to me the original conveyance deed and
original partition deed. I asked about the sale deed, which was
executed today, and he told me that after 4 days, the sale deed would be
sent to my office/factory by Sushil. In this manner, I executed the sale
deed of Plot No. 103, Pocket H-32, Sector-3 in my favour and
returned back. Dharmender Yadav also came with me.
The property H-32/103 has four floors, and a partition deed was made
in which the ground and third floors came into the share of Deepak
Goel, and the first and second floors came into the share of Amit
Goel.
Amit Goel knows that he has also mortgaged his share (first and
second floor), H-32/103, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi with State Bank of
Bikaner & Jaipur, New Rohtak Road, near Liberty
Cinema. Proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been issued
against the accused Amit Goel, resident of Column No. 1.1, which by
the orders of ASJ Ms. Pinki,...
Amit Goel has received the cheated amount by Deepak Goel, the
details are as under:
S. Date From To Amount
No. (Rs.)
1. 27.03.2012 Lakshaya Amit Goel 8,00,000/-
Realcon Pvt.
Ltd.
2. 17.01.2012 Balaji Unique Amit Goel 20,00,000/-
Builders Pvt.
Ltd.
3. 02.03.2012 Amit Goel Balaji Unique Builders Pvt. Ltd. 5,75,000/-
4. 30.03.2012 Amit Goel Deepak Goel 15,76,977/-
5. 20.09.2012 Amit Goel Lakshaya Realcon Pvt. Ltd. 6,00,000/-
6. 01.03.2013 Amit Goel Balaji Unique Builders Pvt. Ltd. 10,90,000/-
7. 29.04.2013 Amit Goel Balaji Unique Builders Pvt. Ltd. 11,00,000/-
8. 22.05.2013 Amit Goel Rahul Gupta (Driver & Gang 3,20,000/-
Member of Deepak Goyal)
9. 10.04.2013 Sharnam Amit Goel 2,99,000/-
Realtors Pvt.
Ltd.
44. From the allegations reproduced above, it emerges that Petitioner
Amit Goyal was the owner of the first and second floors of the property
bearing Plot No.103, Pocket H-32, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi, while Deepak
Goel, who is main accused, was the owner of ground and third floors (with
terrace rights) of said property. They had partitioned the property vide a
registered Partition Deed. Deepak Goel had sold his portion of the property,
i.e. ground and third floors (with terrace rights) to the Complainant.
45. Evidently, the only allegations against Petitioner/Amit Goyal are that,
when he was asked, he did not disclose about the mortgage and the
encumbrance of the first and second floors of the property in question. The
agreement for sale was in regard to ground and third floors, belonging to his
brother, Deepak Goel.
46. It is further significant to observe that Petitioner/Amit Goyal and the
Complainant entered into a settlement and Rs.23,00,000/- have already been
returned by the Petitioner/Amit Goyal to the Complainant. This settlement is
reflected in Bail Order dated 09.08.2018 (Bail Appln. 1883/2018) of a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, whereby Petitioner/Amit Goyal was granted
interim Bail. The relevant portion of the said Order is as under:
"Mr. Mohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner himself is a witness to the mortgage of the property; that the
first and second floor was never mortgaged. Instead, it was the
ground and third floor of the property bearing No. 103, Pocket H32,
Sector 3, Rohini, New Delhi, against which a Bank Loan was
sanctioned and it is the ground and third floor of the property, which
was purported to be sold by Mr. Deepak Goel to the complainant. He
further submits that the petitioner is innocent and has nothing to do
with the matter. In any case, Rs. 23 lacs, which were transferred into
his account, have been repaid to the complainant. He submits that
the petitioner has nothing to do with the sale transaction of the
property and Rs.23 lacs credited into his account was with respect to
other business transaction between his company and the company of
Mr. Deepak Goel.
Issue notice.
Mr. Chadha, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepts notice
on behalf of State. Status Report be filed before the next date.
Re-notify on 26.09.2018.
The interim protection available to the petitioner shall continue till the
next date of hearing on the same terms. It will be open to the
petitioner to move an appropriate application in terms of the
statement of the complainant recorded by the Trial Court on
15.07.2018."
47. Furthermore, on similar reasoning, the Petitioner/Amit Goyal was
granted regular Bail by this Court, on 22.02.2022.
48. Considering the nature of allegations against him and also that the
matter has been amicably settled between Petitioner/Amit Goyal and the
Complainant and also that even though the Complainant was present
throughout, he has not contested the present Petition, Chargesheet and FIR
No.0229/2013 under Sections 468/34/471/420/467/120B/34 IPC, registered
at P.S. Uttam Nagar, Delhi stand quashed.
Case of the Petitioner, Dharmender Yadav:
49. As per Chargesheet, the allegations against Petitioner/Dharmender
Yadav are as under:
"Out of these people, there is one who is living at A-2/48, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059. The family of the said person knows me from about
the last 30 years because my factory was in a residential area and I had
to shift my factory. About one and a half years back, I shifted my factory
to Plot No. 37, Hastal Industrial Area, Pocket-D.
Dharmender Yadav often visits me even today. About 1.5 years back, he
introduced me to his friend namely Deepak Goel, and he told me that he
resides in Rohini and is running a good property business. Deepak Goel
and Dharmender often visit me at my factory.
After a gap of one or two days, they would spend much time with me.
After 10-12 days, one boy came along with Deepak Goel and
Dharmender Yadav, and Deepak Goel introduced him as Sushil Sati,
and told me that he is his right-hand man and deals in all his property
work. He handles all his property business.
...
After that, Deepak Goel, Dharmender Yadav, and Sushil Sati often
visited me and mixed with me in a few days. One day, Deepak Goel and
Dharmender Yadav came to me and said, "Uncle ji, if you want to invest
some money at Rohini, there is a good proposal." I told them that I
would tell them after consulting with my family members.
After consulting with my wife, she told me that first of all I should
do satisfaction at the office of Deepak Goel. Next day, I along with my
wife came to the office of Deepak Goel at A-2/32-33, 1st Floor, Sector-5,
Rohini, Delhi-110085.
One day, about in the first week of October 2011, Deepak Goel,
Dharmender Yadav, and Sushil Sati came to me at my factory. Deepak
Goel gave me the proposal that both the floors in which he resides at H-
32, Sector-3, Plot No. 103, he wants to sell the same.
Therefore, he said that he wants to sell the same because Dharmender
Yadav is between us, and in the market nobody knows about the same.
On this, Dharmender Yadav told me and gave me confidence
that, "Uncle ji, if you purchase both the floors, I will take all the
responsibility and guarantee whatsoever.
I told them that I would reply after consulting with my family members.
After consulting with my wife, she said that I know Dharmender Yadav
since 20 years and he is like my son, and I should make it clear to him.
On the next day, I called Dharmender Yadav at my factory and asked
him whether I should purchase both the floors or not. Then Dharmender
Yadav made me confident and said that I should purchase both the floors
and that he will appear before the Sub-Registrar as a witness, and that it
is his responsibility from any side.
After hearing all that, I had full confidence and said yes to purchase both
the floors. On the next day, Dharmender Yadav, Deepak Goel, and
Sushil Sati came to me at my factory and the deal of both the floors
(ground floor without roof right and third floor with roof right)
of Pocket H-32, Plot No. 103, Sector-3, Rohini was finalized for Rs.
1,38,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Thirty-Eight Lacs). I gave Rs. 15
lacs as an earnest money to Deepak Goel at that time, and they left after
taking the same.
...
The date fixed for the execution of sale deed was 24.10.2011.
On 15.10.2011, I again gave Rs. 30 lacs cash to Deepak Goel and
Dharmender Yadav at my factory. After that, on 20.10.2011, I gave Rs.
25 lacs cash to Dharmender Yadav and Deepak Goel.
After that, on 24.10.2011, I reached the office of Deepak Goel, A-2/32-
33, 1st Floor, Rohini, along with Dharmender Yadav. There I
met Deepak Goel, Sushil Sati, Mukesh Meena, and Neha. These
persons were waiting for me and Dharmender Yadav.
I asked Deepak Goel and Sushil Sati whether they had ordered e-stamp
papers for the ground floor and third floor of Plot No. 103, Pocket H-
32, Sector-3, Rohini. Then Sushil Sati and Deepak Goel replied that I
(Sushil Sati) and Neha have typed the same, because I do the typing
work in front of mine.
At that time, I gave the balance amount of Rs. 35 lacs vide Cheque No.
750706, drawn on ICICI Bank, Rajouri Garden, to Deepak Goel in the
presence of Dharmender Yadav.
...
On this, Dharmender Yadav told me, "Do not worry, Uncle ji. I have
signed and put my thumb impression as a witness." Rahul Gupta has
signed and put his thumb impression as a witness along
with Dharmender Yadav. Deepak Goel and I have also signed and put
our thumb impressions in the court.
Thereafter, all of us reached the office of Deepak Goel. There, Deepak
Goel gave me the whole chain of papers (last). There, Deepak
Goel arranged a talk with a person whose name he told me was Amit
Goel, and told me that he is the brother of Deepak Goel. He also told me
that the papers are all correct.
A partition deed has been executed between us. Amit Goel told me
that first floor and second floor are in my name, and ground floor and
third floor with roof right are in the name of Deepak Goel.
...
Deepak Goel called me at his office Plot No. 103, Pocket H-32, Sector-3,
Rohini, for tea. I was also told that I have to come with Dharmender
Yadav. I, along with Dharmender Yadav, reached his office.
There, Sushil Sati, Neha, and Mukesh Meena were doing their work as
usual. They told me and Dharmender to sit on the first floor and said
that Deepak would come in a few moments.
...
On this, Deepak Goel, Dharmender Yadav, and Yamini Aggarwal told
me that all right, but I have to see four floors and then say something.
Thereafter, all of us--Deepak Goel, Dharmender Yadav, Sushil Sati,
Yamini Aggarwal, and I--came down.
I, along with Sushil Sati, left in my car, and Deepak Goel, along
with Dharmender Yadav and Yamini Aggarwal, left in his car to see
the four floors, whose details are as under:
Block F-16, Plot No. 25, Sector-5, 2nd and 3rd Floor, 120 sq. mtr.
Block H-5, Plot No. 89, Sector-18, Rohini, 2nd Floor without roof
right, 96 sq. mtr.
These floors were lying vacant, and the keys were in the custody of
Deepak Goel and Sushil Sati.
...
On the next day morning, in the presence of Deepak Goel, Yamini
Aggarwal, Dharmender Yadav, and Sushil Sati, the deal for the four
floors with Yamini Aggarwal was finalized in rates mentioned
hereunder:
Pocket F-19, Plot No. 25, Sector-5, 2nd and 3rd Floor with roof
right, 120 sq. mtr. = Rs. 66.5 lacs
Pocket F-19, Plot No. 25, Sector-8, 2nd and 3rd Floor without
roof right, 120 sq. mtr. = Rs. 66.5 lacs
Pocket I-5, Plot No. 89, Sector-18, Rohini, 2nd Floor without
roof right, 90 sq. mtr. = Rs. 60 lacs
Pocket A-5, Plot No. 51, Sector-16, Floor without roof right, 90
sq. mtr. = Rs. 60 lacs
...
Thereafter, while going, Yamini Aggarwal told me that because Deepak
Goel is her brother-in-law, the payment of the four floors would be made
to him. I was told that on that day she would execute the sale deed after
signing it in my favour in the Sub-Registrar Office, and I agreed to the
same, and Dharmender made me believe.
Thereafter, I paid Rs. 25 lacs as earnest money to Yamini Aggarwal in
the presence of Deepak Goel, Dharmender Yadav, and Sushil Sati at my
factory, and the date fixed for the sale deed was 11.11.2011.
...
Thereafter, I gave Rs. 40 lacs to Deepak Goel and Dharmender
Yadav in front of Sushil Sati on 03.11.2011, and paid Rs. 45
lacs on 06.11.2011, and Rs. 35 lacs on 10.11.2011.
On 10.11.2011, when Deepak Goel came for taking payment at my
factory, then I asked about the e-stamp. He told me, in front
of Dharmender Yadav and Sushil Sati, that the e-stamps had been
obtained, Neha was doing the typing in the office, and Sushil would
check all that, and that tomorrow I have to come to execute the sale
deed.
...
Dharmender Yadav and Mukesh Meena completed the proceeding of
sale deed by signing and putting their thumb impression over this sale
deed as witnesses. Thereafter, I and Dharmender Yadav returned back.
..."
50. Essentially, what emerges is that Petitioner/Dharmender Yadav had
been accompanying the owner of the property in question, during the
negotiations of their purchase by the Complainant. He was also a witness to
some of the sale documents. Essentially, nature of allegations against him
was that he had given assurance and confidence to the Complainant, about
authenticity of the transactions.
51. It is also pertinent to observe that Petitioner/Dharmender Yadav has
entered into a settlement with the Complainant with Mediated Settlement
dated 17.09.2013 before the Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari, Delhi and has
paid Rs.30,00,000/- to the Complainant and on the basis of this Settlement,
he had also been granted interim Bail vide Order dated 25.02.2014 of the Ld.
ASJ. The relevant portion of the said Order is as under:
"It is submitted by both the parties that the matter has been settled at
the Mediation Centre on 17.09.2013, and as per the terms of
settlement, the entire settled amount has been paid to the
complainant Sh. Baldev Sapra.
The complainant has stated that he shall return the cheque of Rs.
30,00,000/- and the mortgage deed in respect of property bearing
No. A-2/48, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, to Dharmender Yadav within
two days.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that interim bail
was granted by Ms. Pinki, Ld. ASJ, vide order dated 18.09.2013, and
a prayer is made for confirmation of the interim bail.
The complainant Sh. Baldev Sapra has stated that he has no objection
if the interim bail of accused Dharmender Yadav is confirmed, as he
has received the entire settled amount. A separate statement of the
complainant has been recorded.
Keeping in view the above-narrated facts and the statement made by
the complainant Baldev Sapra, the interim bail of accused
Dharmender Yadav is hereby confirmed."
52. Considering his role, as defined in the Chargesheet, and the fact that
the matter has been amicably settled between the Petitioner/Dharmender
Yadav and the Complainant and also that, even though the Complainant was
present throughout, he has not contested the present Petition, Chargesheet
and FIR No.0229/2013 under Sections 468/34/471/420/467/120B/34 IPC,
registered at P.S. Uttam Nagar, Delhi stand quashed.
Conclusion:
53. Both Petitions along with pending Applications, are allowed.
54. The pending Applications are disposed of, accordingly.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 09, 2026
va
