- (1.) By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No. 51 dated 31.1.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Sector 31 Faridabad and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
(2.) The contents of FIR (Annexure P-1) read as under:- "1. That the complainant is resident of C-11, 208, Belevedere Tower 2 Charmwood village Surajkund Road, Tehsil and District Faridabad, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Suraj Kund Tehsil and District Faridabad. 2. That on or about 07.11.2005 the accused No. 1 through accused No. 2 represented to the complainant at his house and made him believe that accused No. 1 was absolute owner in possession of industrial plot No. 14 DLF industrial Estate No. 2 Faridabad, measuring 2329 Sq yards vide judgment and decree dated 16.05.96 passed in civil suit No. 411 of 12.4.1996 passed by Hon'ble court of Miss Sunita Goyal. The then civil judge (Junior Division), Faribabad. The accused No. 2 further represented that accused No. 1 became the un-disputed owner in possession of the property. After the death of her husband who was owner in possession of the said property vide regd. Sale deed bearing its document No. 339 date 26.3.1974 duly registered with office of Registrar, Delhi and she is the legal heir/owner in possession of the said property and accused No. 2 is her special power of attorney which was duly attested by the High Commission of India, Londan on 10.3.1997 and the said special power of attorney is very much in force and which has not been terminated/cancelled and re-baked till date. The accused no further conveyed vide regd. Sale deed dated 26.3.1974 was survived only by his two heirs i.e. accused No. 1 wife and accused No. 2 son. Photostat copies of plaint, written statement, judgment and decree are attached as Annexure P-1 to P-4. 3. That complainant after verifying the decree and after believing and relying upon the accused No. 2 entered into a written agreement to sell on 10.11.2005 with accused No. 1 through accused No. 2 in respect of above said plot i.e. industrial plot No. 14 DLF industrial Estate No. 2 measuring 2329 Sq. Yds. for a total sum of Rs. 1,97,96,500/- and paid Rs. 20,00,000/- vide their separate receipt. The Photostat copies of agreement and receipt are Annexure P-5 and P6. That said plot is bounded as under:- on North and plot of Sita Singh and sons on South by road on East by factory No. 15 of Sita Singh and sons West by plot nos. 13&13A of the complainant. 4. That the Material terms of the agreement dated 10.11.2005 are as under:- (i) That the entire sale consideration amounts for the transfer of all the rights, title, ownership and lease possession lien and interest of the first party in the said prodecuted us agreed at Rs. 8500/- (Rupees eight thousand five hundred only) per Sq. Yards which will amounts to Rs. 1,97,96,500/- (Rupees One core Nightly Seven lakh Ninety six thousand and five hundred only). (ii) That out of the above sale consideration the accused No. 2 hereby acknowledges the receipt of an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- ( Rupees Twenty lacs only) i.e. 5,00,000/- by cash and Rs. 15,00,000/- by draft No. 513221 dated 9.11.2005 drawn on Indian Bank, Nehru Palace, New Delhi against sale of the said property being the earnest money. (iii) That the balance sum of Rs. 1,77,96,500/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety seven lacs ninety six thousand five hundred) will be paid by the complainant to the both the accused within three months without any demur against the execution and registration of the deed of sale and handing over the symbolic/proprietary possession in respect of the said property. (iv) That the physical possession of the said property is already is with the complainant. That the accused has assured the complainant that the said property is free from all kind of encumbrance or any imperfect title such as prior sale, mortgage litigation's his puts stay order, judgment, liens charge, surety, security, cancellation, injunction, gift, will previous contract to sell became ownership of any other unregistered encumbrance and desucenebcy whatsoever shall also keep the said property free from encumbrance during the pendency of this agreement till the execution of sale deed etc. and handing over of possession of this statement is found otherwise as a result of which if complainant is deprived of the said property or any part there of then both the accused unconditionally undertakes to compensate and indirectly the said for all the expenses, losses and damages suffered by the complainant. All the document in respect of the said property shall be given to the complainant at the time of execution of sale deed. The accused No. 2 has assured the accused No. 1 is the only undisputed successor of the said property, if found otherwise, the accused No. 1 along with accused No. 2 shall be fully liable for the consequence damages to the complainant (vi) That the accused No. 1 has paid vacant land tax house, water charge, taxes, duties, if any to the concerned authorities and if any dues felting to the said property up-to the date of execution of sale deed remain un paid the liability there of shall be of both the accused till the execution of the sale deed or even thereafter. No dues certificate shall be obtained from the Municipal Commissioner Faridabad. (vii) All the expenses on account of stamp duty and registration charges shall be borne by the complainant (viii) That in case the accused No. 1 fails to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant or its nominees within the stipulated period complainant shall be entitled to get the said deed executed in his favour or in the favour or its nominees through court of law by specific performance by making the balance payment through court (ix) That in case the complainant do not pay the balance consideration within 90 days, the accused No. 2 have the right to cancel the contract, forfeit the earnest money and resume the possession without any further obligation.(x) That the first party shall also obtain any requisite permission, sanction clearances as may be required for completion of the transaction including any other legal heirs before the execution of the deed of sale (xi) That the civil courts at Faridabad shall have the jurisdiction to try disputes between the complainant and accused. (xii) That the accused No. 2 had agreed and undertaken to get issue fresh Power of attorney in his own favour or in favour of his relative Smt. Shashi Chhabra. For execution and registration of sale deed (This condition is given below of the signed by SPA) 5. That as the complainant had been in continuing occupation of the plot as licences under the accused, so in the agreement clause No. 4 has been written that physical possession of the said property is already with the complainants. Pursuance to this agreement in favour of the complainant executed by both the accused the complainant constructed two water botes one tank of approximately 5 lacs liters water underground one tank of approximately 2 lacs liters water under ground one tank of approximately 50000 liters water over head tank, two bathroom, one kitchen reception room, office attached with A.C. conference room, accounts room, garden, boundary wall and two big gates, one gate connecting the disputed plot with adjoining plot Nos. 13 and 13A of the complainant. The complainant was running dying industry so the complainant has constructed these tanks for supply of water of its adjoining factory along with this the complainants constructed the floor approximately 10,000 Sq. feet 6. That the complainants orally and then through his counsel Sh. DP Bhadana, Advocate issued a legal notice dated 18.1.2006 to the accused at their both address informing and called upon them to come down to Faridabad and contact the accused for doing the need and get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of the complainant on or before 8.2.2006 but the accused No. 1 and 2 did not return back while the registered latter at local address return back un-delivered. A copy of notice, four postal receipts and two un delivered Envelops are attached as annexure P-7 to P-13 respectively. 7. That the complainant went to the office of Sub Registrar Faridabad on 8.2.2006 in the morning and remained there for whole of the day along with money lying in the bank for the payment of remaining sale consideration and for purchase of stamp and expenses but the accused No. 1 and 2 did not turn up. The complainant got his presence marked before the Sub Registrar Faridabad. Photoset copy of affidavit for presence before Sub Registrar Faridabad, is enclosed as Annexure P-14. 8. That even after 8.2.2006 the complainant requested several times to the accused No. 1 and 2 on telephone to execute and register the sale deed but the accused No. 1 and 2 did not pay any heed but only sent a vague reply through their advocate Sh. R.M. Singh in which accused No. 1 and 2 had admitted the execution of agreement and possession of complainant. 9. That the complainant was always ready and willing to purchase the land in question and still is ready and willing to performa his part of agreement/contract but it is the accused No. 1 and 2 who have refused to perform their part of contract on 8.2.2006 i.e. the last date for execution and registration of sale deed. Photostat copies of pass books attached here with as Annexure P-16 and P-17 respectively. 10. That even thereafter the complainant urged the accused to come forward to perform their part of the contract. However, the complainant found the attitude of the accused extremely suspicious. The complainant was utterly shocked and dismayed when the accused started vahuely hinting that there was some problem with their title pertaining to suit property. Complainant repeatedly requested both the accused to furnish complete detailed pertaining to the problem being encountered by them in so far transfer of title pertaining to the suit property was concerned. Accused frgainded from giving satisfactory answer to the complainant. Under these circumstances the complainant made enquires and came to know that both the accused No. 1 and 2 have played a father of accused No. 2 died on 31.1.1978 intestate leaving behind five legal heirs i.e. accused No. 1 and filed a collusive suit before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Faridabad, vide Civil Suit No. 411 of 12.4.1996 showing that the accused No. 1 and 2 constitute HUF and in a family settlement the accused No. 1 became the undisputed owner in possession of the suit property. Both the accused did not disclose the names of the daughters in the suit nor they were arrayed as a party to the suit. That Smt. Anita Singh filed a civil suit No. 512 of 19.12.2000 as suit for declaration with consequential relief and permanent injunction against both the accused and both sisters namely Semt. Renu Chopra and Shashi Chhabra challenging the decree dated 16.5.1996 on the ground of fraud. The accused No. 1 and 2 along with other sister initially engaged a lawyer sought adjournments for filling written statement and thereafter proceeded to regain from contesting the said suit. Both the accused were conscious and aware that they had played fraud upon the court of Miss Suinta Goel, the then Civil Judge Faridabad which was bound to be exposed in court. The said suit was decreed on 5.4.2005 by the Hon'ble court of Miss Madhu Khanna the then Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn) District Faridabad hold in that all the five heirs are joint owners in possession of the suit property having their share each Photostat copy of judgment is enclosed here with as annexure P-18. 12. That both he accused knew this that they suppressed the fact from the complainant at the time of making the agreement as there are relationship of mother and daughter between the accused No. 1 and three daughters and brother and sisters between accused No. 2 and the sisters and all the legal heirs are in a frdutiroty charter in this way both the accused have cheated the complainant and complainant is a victim of fraud of accused No. and 2. 13. That the accused persons have by deceiving the complainant, fraudulently made the complainant part with his hard earned money which the complainant would not have done had he know about such deception. The accused have thus brought loss to the complainant in money and property and thus cheated the complainant. It is therefore prayed that both the accused may kindly be summoned and punished for committing the offence under section 420 IPC. It is further paryed that the recovery of the cheated amount from the possession of the accused is very much essential for the just decision of the case and the recovery can be get affected by the police. So the investigation by the police is must. There forfeit is prayed that the complaint may be sent to P.S. Suraj Kund under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C for the registration of the case and investigation. Prayed accordingly. Complainant Sanjay Arora son of P.L. Arora r/o H. No. C-11, 208 Beledere Tower, 2 Charmwood village Surajkund Road Faridabad date 4.11.2008."
(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.;