Dismissed

Manveer Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2020A482/10056/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 CrPC, the applicant sought quashing of a charge sheet alleging he was a dummy purchaser in a sham flat allotment transaction to defraud a bank. The Court found no merit in the application as the applicant failed to demonstrate any illegality or jurisdictional error and rejected the plea.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of charge sheet no.26/2019 and order of cognizance denied.

Manveer Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10056 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Manveer Singh Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Counsel for Applicant :- R.P.S. Chauhan,Rajesh Kumar (Mishra) Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the record.

¶6

By the instant application, the applicant seeks the following relief:-

¶7

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant application and to quash the charge sheet no.26/2019 dated 30.12.2019 in F.I.R. No./Case Crime No.RC2192017E0017 of 2017, under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and substantive offences thereof registered at Police Station CBI/E.O-1, New Delhi and order of cognizance dated 2.1.2020 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad Court, Ghaziabad."

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a bonafide purchaser. He has been cheated by the builder; the amount and EMI have been paid to the builder for the flat from his savings bank account. It is further urged that applicant has filed a complaint with the Senior Superintendent of Police.

¶9

In rebuttal, learned counsel for C.B.I. submits that applicant is a dummy purchaser set up by the builder to obtain loan from the bank and requisite commission was paid to the applicant. The flat alleged to have been allotted to the applicant was allotted to the genuine purchaser. The purpose of setting up a dummy purchaser by the builder was to defraud the bank. The allegations against the applicant as noted in the charge sheet is as follows:-

¶10

"16.11 Investigation revealed that accused Manveer Singh (Allottee) in criminal conspiracy with accused Sachin Dutta (Builder) were allotted Flat No.1-1302 in Project Foster Heights. The allotment letter dated 19.7.2010 was signed by accused Sachin Dutta and accused Manveer Singh (allottee). Although no booking amount was paid by accused Manveer Singh (allottee) to the accused Sachin Dutta (Builder), yet in the allotment letter, it was fraudulently mentioned that allottee had paid Rs.5 lacs to the builder as margin money/booking amount. The builder also issued forged receipts no.193 dated 10.7.2010 & 196 dated 26.7.2010 fraudulently showing payment received by him from the allottees.

¶11

16.12 Investigation revealed that the cost of the flat no.A-1302 was Rs.33.60 lacs. The accused Manveer Singh (allottees) applied to PNB RAB, Ghaziabad for housing loan of Rs.25.20 lacs. The loan application

¶12

of accused Manveer Singh (allottee) alongwith his income, address and identity proof was submitted to the bank, through the builder's office. Investigation has revealed that the income documents submitted by accused Manveer Singh (allottee) are forged and fabricated.

¶13

16.13 The aforesaid loan proposal was processed and recommended by Sh. Mukesh arora, the then Manager, PNB RAB Ghaziabad. This was sanctioned by Sh. S.R. Chugh, the then Chief Manager and incumbent Incharge. After sanction of laon, the documents were executed by borrower accused Manveer Singh (allottee), builder Sh. Sachin Dutta and Sh. N.K. Chhatwani, Officer PNB, RAB (GT Road) Ghaziabad. The accused Sachin Dutta (Builder) executed an Agreement of Guarantee dated 26.7.2010 in favour of borrower/accused Manveer Singh (allottee). The borrower/accused Manveer Singh (allottee) also executed Agreement for Housing loan dated 26.7.2010 with the bank. Thereafter, the accused persons, namely Sachin Dutta (Builder) and Manveer Singh (allottee) alongwith Bank Officer Sh. N.K. Chhatwani executed a Tripartite Agreement dated 26.7.2010. As per this Tripartite Agreement also a total payment of Rs.6.20 lacs was made by borrowers/accused Manveer Singh (allottee) to the builder. However, no such payment was made and only forged receipts were issued by the builder to induce the bank in sanctioning and releasing the housing loan.

¶14

16.14 After execution of loan documents an amount of Rs.24 lacs was disbursed on 27.7.2010 through housing loan account no.522100NC00000412 of Manveer Singh and credited to a/c no.4053002100008300 of M/s Balaji Hi-Tech Construction Pvt. Ltd. of the builder accused Sachin Dutta.

¶15

16.15 Investigation has further revealed that Flat No.A-1302, Foster Heights was again sold by accused Sachin Dutta (Builder) to Sh. Rajnish Kumar Singh & Smt. Anupam Singh, in the year 2012. An Agreement to Sale dated 29.3.2012 for this Flat No.A-1302 was signed by accused Sachin Dutta and the allottees. The accused Sachin Dutta also again secured a housing loan in the name of allottees/borro9wers Sh. Rajnish Kumar Singh & Smt. Anupam Singh on the same Flat A-1302, from PNB Vasundhara. The laon documents such as the agreement of guarantee. Tripartite Agreement were signed by accused Sachin Dutta as Director M/s Shri Balaji Hi-Tech Constructions Pvt. Ltd., knowing fully well that he had already sold the same flat no.A-1302 in the year 2010. But it has been revealed that earlier sale of flat no.A-1302 to accused Manveer Singh was only a sham transaction as no payment was made by the allottee/borrower and this sham transaction was made between builder & borrower only with intention to cheat the bank by fraudulently obtaining a house loan on this flat."

¶16

Attention of the Court has been drawn to the list of allottees furnished by the bank, wherein, it is evident that each flat has been allotted to 2 to 3 parties. The investigation further reveals that the data extracted from the computers of the employees/builder/housing company a list of dummy purchasers and actual purchaser were maintained in separate list.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant failed to show any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error either in the

¶18

impugned charge sheet or order of cognizance.

¶19

The petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, rejected.

¶20

Order Date :- 19.10.2020 Anil K. Sharma

Manveer Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manveer Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bablu Gaur @ Gobardhan Vs State of U.P.

Bhim Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shavej Vs State of U.P.

Gulshan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another