abundantly clear that the petitioner had induced respondent No. 2 to part with money on the promise that two plots will be allotted to the petitioner in Nakul Sahakari Gruhnirman Society, Malvani. To the extent of failure of performance and consequent cheating, even on the assumption that the intention of the petitioner was dishonest since inception of the transaction, the matter would have properly fell within the realm of a private dispute arising out of commercial transaction. What, however, accentuates the situation is the fact that the petitioner, upon being pestered by respondent No. 2 handed over two fles containing forged and fabricated documents pertaining to one Virendra Mahendra Panchal, who was purportedly shown as the transferor. As the respondent No. 2 entertained suspicion, he approached the Vigilance Offcer of MHADA and thereupon it transpired that those documents were forged and fabricated. The communication dated 27th August, 2009 annexed to the report of police reveals that the Chief Vigilance Offcer, MHADA had recommended the Dy. Commissioner of Police to register the frst information report as the documents were found to be forged and fabricated.
