- (1.) THE petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No. 174 dated 30.12.2011 registered at Police Station Mator, District SAS Nagar for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 120 -B IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
(2.) ON the complaint by respondents No. 2 and 3 (Annexure P - 1) the police registered FIR in question against the petitioner and other persons. The allegations levelled by respondents No. 2 and 3 in the FIR are enumerated as follows : - (i) In order to invest their money after retirement from Bank service, respondents No. 2 and 3 contacted property dealer Rajnish Oberoi on 5.9.2009, who advised them to invest for purchase of a MIG flat in Sector 63, Chandigarh and arranged their meeting with another property dealer Sanjiv Narula at Phase -VII Mohali. (ii) Aforesaid person told respondents No. 2 and 3 about the allotment of MIG flat to Raja Singh. The allotment letter was yet to be issued by Chandigarh Housing Board. Sanjiv Narula informed respondents No. 2 and 3 that he had already entered into an agreement to purchase the MIG flat with Raja Singh. However, the same was not supplied to respondents No. 2 and 3 on the pretext that it was lying in some locker. The assurance of very clear and fair deal was given to them by Sanjiv Narula and Rajnish Oberoi. (iii) On the representations made by Sanjiv Naruala and Rajnish Oberoi, the private respondents agreed to purchase the said flat vide agreement dated 5.10.2009 and paid Rs. 7,30,000/ - to Sanjiv Narula in presence of Rajnish Oberoi and G.S. Kakkar. The balance amount was to be paid within 15 days after receipt of letter of allotment from Chandigarh Housing Board. (iv) On coming to know of the issuance of allotment letter by Chandigarh Housing Board, respondents No.2 and 3 contacted Sanjiv Narula and Rajnish Oberoi and offered the remaining amount under the agreement but Sanjiv Narula started putting of the matter on one pretext or the other and also threatened respondents No.2 and 3 not to call him. (v) They then contacted Raja Singh, the original allottee of the MIG flat, who told them that he never sold the MIG flat to Sanjiv Narula. He had sold this flat to Mohinder Thakur, petitioner and Ripu Sharma, who are running the business under the name of Yash Properties. On the asking of Mohinder Thakur and Ripu Sharma on 30.07.2010 he had also executed all the documents like GPA, agreement etc. of the MIG flat in favour of Anurag Garg of Sirsa. (vi) Further inquiries made by respondents No. 2 and 3 revealed that firstly, the MIG flat was booked in the name of Mohinder Thakur, then Sanjiv Narula sold this flat in the name of Mohinder Thakur and Sanjiv Narula sold the flat to respondents No.2 and 3 representing as agreement holder of Mohinder Thakur (earlier claimed to be of Raja Singh) (vii) Respondents No.2 and 3 alleged that they have been cheated by the petitioner in connivance with Sanjiv Narula and others.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner entered into an agreement to purchase a flat from Sanjiv Narula. Sanjiv Narula had represented respondents No.2 and 3 that he had agreed to purchase the flat from Raja Singh. In fact, the flat was allotted to Raja Singh, who entered into an agreement to sell with Mohinder Thakur. Mohinder Thakur entered into an agreement to sell the same with Sanjiv Narula. Mohinder Thakur had no dealing with respondents No.2 and 3 regarding this flat. He had made no representation or received any amount from them. They had the dealing with Sanjiv Naruala. If any deal of Sanjiv Narula with Mohinder Thakur had not matured, respondents No. 2 and 3 had no concerned with the same. Sanjiv Narula had got legal remedy against the petitioner Mohinder Thakur. The registration of false case against the petitioner is misuse of the process of law to harass him.;