Petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr. PC regarding disputed agreement to sell. Court held issues require trial court evidence. Initial withdrawal recalled; petition dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000.
Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000 to be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
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.
$~54
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: September 04, 2018
MUKUL TRIVEDI .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Francis, Advocate with petitioner in person
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
O R D E R (ORAL)
Crl. M.C. No.496/2016
Page 1 of 5
Crl. M.C. No.496/2016
Page 2 of 5
636.2 sq. yd. situate at Jor Bagh, New Deli in favour of the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.5.5 Crores out of which Rs.2.05 Crore was received by him as earnest money, the balance being payable at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. The parties had agreed at the said stage that the balance payment would be made on or before 30.06.2006 against handing over of the vacant peaceful possession of the property being sold and also at the time of execution and registration of the sale/ transfer documents. The said date i.e. 30.06.2006 was extended three times, lastly for and upto 25.09.2006.
Crl. M.C. No.496/2016
Page 3 of 5
but also the payments which were made from time to time, he having statedly extended the time for completion of the contract and having refused to perform his part of the agreement when balance money had been kept ready and had even been offered. It may be mentioned in this context that it has been the stand of the complainant, as is more elaborately set out in the civil suit pleadings whereof are also part of the material on which the complaint is being pressed, that he had approached the accused one week prior to the date 25.09.2006 personally and also given reminders telephonically on the following dates intimating that he was ready and willing to pay the balance sum against delivery of vacant physical possession inspite of which the accused would not respond.
Crl. M.C. No.496/2016
Page 4 of 5
petitioner to adduce his evidence, such evidence led at the stage of pre-charge evidence presently underway being, of course, subject to being tested, inter alia , through the process of cross-examination. 11. In the given facts and circumstances, the view taken by the revisional court in the order dated 26.02.2014 leading to the summoning order being passed by the Magistrate on 10.03.2014 cannot be faulted.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 04, 2018 yg
Crl. M.C. No.496/2016
Page 5 of 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal complaint in a civil dispute regarding breach of agreement to sell requires quashing under Section 482 Cr. PC when civil courts have not yet decided the merits.
Whether the petitioner can rely on notices and replies between parties without leading evidence at pre-charge stage.
Whether a plea of inadviserent withdrawal can be recalled to restore the petition for hearing on merits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajiv Thapar and Ors. vs. Madan Lal KapoorExplained¶9
Rajiv Thapar and Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mukul Trivedi
State
Second Respondent
R.K.Gauba
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
R.K.Gauba
Parties & counsel
