BHARAT BHUSAN MALHOTRA Vs. G E MONEY HOUSING FINANCE LTD
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BHARAT BHUSAN MALHOTRA
G.E.MONEY HOUSING FINANCE LTD.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed for issuing directions for calling for records pertaining to FIR No. 809/2007 p. S. Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi and quashing of the same.
(2.) THE FIR in question was registered under section 420/406/ 467/468/120-B IPC against the present petitioner. The allegations in the FIR are that petitioner obtained home loan for purchase of second floor of property No. H-9/12, Malviyanagar, new Delhi, which property was shown by the complainant to the petitioner prior to entering into home loan agreement. Before granting the loan, the officials of the complainant went through all the legal formalities, that is, the complainant obtained non-encumbrance certificate after getting the verification through their Advocate. The petitioner had sent a notice dated 28. 4. 2006 to the complainant, and complainant vide reply dated 10. 5. 2006, admitted that the loan was sanctioned after verification of the title deed. The loan amount was disbursed to the petitioner after completing title search with regard to the ownership of the said property. The petitioner created equitable mortgage in respect of the said property and the original sale deed was submitted after disbursement of the loan. The amount of loan was disbursed by the complainant by cheque in. the name of seller namely shri. Narinder Singh Negi and a sum of rs. 96,000/- was given to the petitioner- Brij bhusan Malhotra. One Mr. Surendra Mohan tiwari has filed a Civil Suit against the petitioner as well as co-accused Narinder singh Negi, Sanjiv Tiwari and others, bearing suit No. 225/05 for cancellation of documents in favour of the petitioner, which is pending in the court of Shri A. K. Pathak, additional District Judge. It is further alleged that Sh. Narinder Singh Negi had already sold the said house to Sh. Surendra Mohan tiwari in the year 1997 and petitioner was not in the possession of the'property. The petitioner has thus cheated the complainant by concealing the fact that property in question has already been sold to Sh. Surendra Mohan Tiwari.
(3.) IT has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a bona-fide purchaser, who submitted all the documents to the complaint and he at no time had induced the complainant to believe that the title of the above said property was true, but he submitted it to be verified by the complainant. The complainant has failed to show that there existed a fraudulent intention at the time of commission of the offence. Further, civil dispute between the parties is also pending and as such present fir in question is liable to be quashed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.