The petitioner challenged an FIR for cheating, arguing false implication and lack of prima facie case. The High Court found the allegations established a criminal dispute based on dishonest intent and failure to return funds, refusing to quash the FIR.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
47# $
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Crl. M.A. No. 10826/2016 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CRL.M.C. 2526/2016
Page 1 of 3
CRL.M.C. 2526/2016
generic and the complainant has placed no documents in support of the allegation in the FIR.
27 lakhs duly acknowledged to have been received by him payable in six months. Thereafter the petitioner again approached the complainant with an offer to sell the second floor for a consideration of 1.50 crores only to which the complainant agreed and the parties entered into an Agreement to Sell and Purchase dated 18th January, 2012 and a further sum of 30 lakhs was paid to the petitioner, with six months’ time for payment of the balance amount. In the month of April, 2012 the petitioner again requested for more payment as he was in dire need. Thus the complainant paid a further sum of 51 lakhs to the petitioner against four receipts duly acknowledging the payment of 51 lakhs. Thus the petitioner received a total sum of 1.08 crores till April, 2012 in terms of the Agreement to Sell dated 18th January, 2012. The complainant asked the petitioner to execute the sale deed however, he did not do so and sought further time repeatedly. In the second week of December, 2013 the complainant learnt that the property in question, which the petitioner had firstly mortgaged with him and thereafter entered into an Agreement to Sell, executed General Power of Attorney andPage 2 of 3
CRL.M.C. 2526/2016
Special Power of Attorney had already been mortgaged to Punjab National Bank, Rajouri Garden Branch, New Delhi. Thus the petitioner had with mala fide and dishonest intention defrauded and cheated the complainant and when demand to return `1.08 crores was made, the petitioner did not return the money.
(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE
JULY 20, 2016 ‘vn’
Page 3 of 3
CRL.M.C. 2526/2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the allegations of false implication in the FIR constitute a criminal offence of cheating or a mere civil dispute.
Whether the High Court should quash the FIR and impugn the trial court's order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Subhkaran Luharuka s/o Late K.P. Luharuka and Shree Ram Mills Ltd. Vs. StateReferred¶8
170 (2010) DLT 516 Subhkaran Luharuka s/o Late K.P. Luharuka and Shree Ram Mills Ltd. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Utility Premises Pvt. Ltd.
Anil Bhatia
State & Anr.
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Mukta Gupta
Parties & counsel