Delhi District Court
Achla Nand Sharma vs State Of Delhi on 14 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOVLEEN, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLSE010027942025
Crl. Rev. No. 194/2025
SANJEEV SRIVASTAVA
A-60, Sector-33,
Noida,
UP-201301.
.....Revisionist
Versus
1. State of Delhi
D-23, GREATER KAILASH,
Delhi-110048
2. RAJEEV SRIVASTAVA
A-60, SECTOR-33,
NOIDA, UP-201301
3. ACHLA NAND SHARMA
Flat No. 132 Golf Vista Apartment Alpha-2
Grater Noida Kasana Gautam Budh Nagar,
UP.
...Respondents
Date of institution : 21.03.2025
Date of reserving the order : 17.04.2025
LOVLEEN Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....1 of 26
Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State
Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN
Date: 2025.05.14
18:02:20 +0530
____________________________________________________________
DLSE010020132025
Crl. Rev. No. 165/2025
ACHLA NAND SHARMA
FLAT NO. 132, GOLF VISTA APARTMENT,
GREATER NOIDA KASANA,
GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR,
UTTAR PRADESH-201310
.....Revisionist
Versus
1. State of NCT of Delhi
D-23, GREATER KAILASH,
DELHI- 110048.
2. SANJEEV SRIVASTAVA (dropped from the array of parties vide
order dated 17.03.2025)
A-60, SECTOR-33
NOIDA, UP-201301.
3. RAJEEV SRIVASTAVA (dropped from the array of parties vide
order dated 17.03.2025)
A-60, SECTOR-33,
NOIDA, UP-201301
...Respondents
Date of institution : 01.03.2025
Date of reserving the order : 24.03.2025
Date of pronouncement : 14.05.2025
Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....2 of 26
Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State
JUDGMENT
1. These are two separate revision petitions under section 440 of BNSS preferred against the order dated 13.12.2024, passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, South-East District, Delhi in Criminal case no. 1742/2022 titled State Vs. M/s Assotech Ridge Greens Reality Private Limited arising out of FIR No. 169/2018 PS EOW South East. The said FIR was registered at the instance of one Satya Priya Lakhotia, who had given a complaint to police on behalf of three separate Trusts (namely Lakhotia Nursery Trust, Subhash Sushila Lakhotia Trust and Ram Niwas Asha Rani Lakhotia Trust) and one Mr. Subhash Chandra Lakhotia alleging fraud and cheating. Said three trusts and said Mr. Subhash Chandra Lakhotia shall be collectively referred to as complainants hereinafter. Vide the impugned order dated 13.12.2024, Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate was pleased to order framing of charge u/s 406/420/120 B IPC against the revisionists.
GROUNDS OF REVISION (SANJEEV SRIVASTAV)
2. The revisionist Sanjeev Srivastav attacks the impugned order on the following grounds:-
A. Because the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Agreement amongst the Complainants and the Revisionist was recorded in writing and therefore no oral testimony contrary to the written agreement can be given during the trial, whereas the entire substratum of the allegations levelled against the Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....3 of 26 Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State Revisionist is based on certain oral representations stated to have been made by the Revisionist with relation to the agreement between the parties and in contradiction to the executed agreement between the parties, which explicitly overrides all previous communication.
B. Because the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the agreement dated 22.02.2013 doesn't contain any representation on behalf of the Revisionist or the Accused No. 4 Company to the effect that the Accused No. 4 Company owned any land at the time of the execution of the agreement or prior thereto. The agreement merely contained a representation that a project would be coming up on 100 acres of land, that licenses would be obtained, the Accused No. 4 Company would launch a project and that the Accused No. 4 Company has rights in the said project which would be launched.
C. Because the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Agreement dated 22.02.2013 itself contained a clause that if the Accused No. 4 Company failed to obtain a Letter of Intent from the relevant authorities within 08 month from the date of execution of the said Agreement, the said Agreement would be treated as terminated/foreclosed and that the Complainants would be entitled to the buyback amount and therefore the failure as alleged in the Chargesheet on part of the Accused No. 4 Company would only give rise to a civil claim.
D. Because the Chargesheet failed to disclose any false representation made by the Revisionist at the time of obtaining consideration from the Complainants. As per the Complaint, Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....4 of 26 Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State the representations made by the Revisionist were that it had aggregated a sizeable parcel of land, and it was in the process of launching the project and the requisite approvals had been applied for, whereas the Agreement dated 22.02.2013 signed and produced by the Complainants themselves, recorded that the Revisionist's representation was merely that the project would come on 100 acres of land and licenses would be obtained. Therefore, the Complainants having signed the Agreement, are estopped from making any statement contrary to or in variance with the said Agreement.
E. Because the Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the averments in the Agreement were in the nature of promises and not representations and therefore there was no misrepresentation. The Agreement clearly stipulated that the Accused No. 4 Company was going to build up the project in the future and also provided that in case of failure on part of the Accused No. 4 Company to do the same, the Complainants would be entitled to receive 'buy back' amount.
F. Because the delivery of the plots being made contingent upon the coming up of the project in the agreement itself, no case under Section 420 of the IPC can be initiated in case of non-delivery of the said plots due to failure in launch of the project.
G. Because the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the alleged reply of the District Town Planner dated 07.03.2019 in response to notice under section 91 CrPC dated 22.02.2019 couldn't have been a basis to conclude that the Accused No. 4 Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....5 of 26 Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State Company never acquired any land as by way of the said Section 91 Cr.P.C. notice, the Investigating Officer had enquired whether any land has been allotted to the Company by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "HUDA") whereas a plot or parcel of land can also be privately purchased by the Accused No. 4 Company from an individual.
H. Because the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the finding in the Chargesheet that the Petitioner never acquired any land was contrary not only to the Complaint itself but also to findings in the Chargesheet which stated that the said land was sold by the Accused No. 4 Company herein to 'Sri Anand Mai' therefore the Present Chargesheet entailing such glaring contradictions could not have been a basis of concluding that the Petitioner is liable to be charged.
I. Because the impugned order gives no reason whatsoever for holding that the Petitioner is liable to be charged, except that the Agreements bore his signatures and that he had taken a total of Rs 1.3 Crore through cheque and Rs 80 Lakhs in cash from the Complainants and that post-dated cheques were issued by the Accused No. 4 Company, without showing as to what was the fraudulent inducement.
J. Because the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the charge of cheating and misappropriating with relation to the same transaction is wholly unsustainable as the charge under Section 406 requires a valid and conscious entrustment with property whereas cheating implies delivery by fraudulent Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....6 of 26 Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State inducement, and a property delivered by inducement cannot be said to be entrusted.
K. Because the allegation in the Complaint that land was misappropriated and the allegation in the Chargesheet that money was misappropriated do not disclose as to how money or land was entrusted to the Accused No. 4 Company, the Revisionist or the other directors of the Accused No. 4 Company. L. Because in the absence of any specific false representation qua existing state of things, no charge of Section 420 IPC could be framed.
M. Because the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the assurances, if any, given by the Revisionist, to the Complainants in the year 2015 and 2017, could never be held to be an inducement to deliver any property as the Complainants had allegedly paid the entire sale consideration between December 2007 and March 2011.
N. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Complainants had been provided with cheques for buy back of the plots by the Accused No. 4 Company and that the Complainants, who were in possession of the said cheques, never presented the same and instead let the said cheques expire.
O. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the non- delivery of possession of the plots could not amount to cheating and misappropriation, moreso where the Accused Company had issued cheques for the buy-back of the plots and the Complainants themselves never presented the said cheques.
Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....7 of 26
Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State
P. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that for the charge under Section 406 to be made out, there had to be a valid and conscious entrustment of property, whereas the Complainants had paid monies to the Accused Company as consideration for purchase of plots, and therefore, there was no entrustment of property.
Q. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the agreement, at Clause 2 under the heading Special Terms and Conditions, provides for buy-back of the plots at a fixed buy- back price, for which purpose, a post date cheque was issued and the Accused Company had represented that the said cheque would be honoured and that in the event the Complainant did not seek to retain the plots, he was to present the cheque within one month from the date mentioned on the cheque, and in the event the Complainant wished to retain the plots, the cheque was to be returned to the Company, and that the Complainant never returned the cheque to the company.
R. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the agreement, at Clause 6 under the heading Special Terms and Conditions, further stipulates that in the event the company was unable to obtain the letter of intent from the competent authority, the agreement would be treated as terminated or foreclosed and in such event, the Complainant would be entitled to buyback amount agreed upon, to paid immediately after expiry of a period of eight months from the date of the agreement, subject to the surrender of the post dated cheque given to the Complainant, and that the Complainant never Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....8 of 26 Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State approached the Accused for surrender of the cheque and consequential payment of the buy back amount in terms of the agreement.
S. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that where the agreement itself recorded the undertaking of the company to either buy-back the plots at the option of the Complainant or to pay the buy-back amount in the event it failed to obtain the requisite licenses, there could have been no intention to cheat the Complainants, particularly where the Complainants themselves failed to either approach the company for buy-back of their plots or surrender the cheque and seek payment of the buy-back amount.
GROUNDS OF REVISION (ACHLA NAND SHARMA)
3. The revisionist Achla Nand Sharma attacks the impugned order on the following grounds:-
A). Because the Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the chargesheet filed by the Investigating Agency seeks framing of charges against the Petitioner herein for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioner herein was not a director of the Accused No. 4 Company's at the time of signing of Agreement dated 20.02.2012 and neither in March 2015 when it was. allegedly assured that the said plots would be completed and during the only alleged interaction with the Petitioner was when he was a director of Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....9 of 26 Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State the Accused No. 4 Company the Complainants were allegedly informed that plots will not be given and instead buy-back amount will be paid, which was in terms of the Agreement between the parties entered into on behalf of the Accused No.
4 Company by Accused No. 1 and the Petitioner herein was only appointed as a director on 03.10.2016.
B). Because the Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Petitioner has only been sought to be charged even though he was not a director in the Accused No. 4 Company at the relevant time, and was only appointed as a director on 03.10.2016, even when, there is no concept of vicarious liability for the offences under the IPC.
C). Because the Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that knowledge of the act done by the Accused No. 4 Company, prior to becoming a director of the Accused No. 4 Company, could not have been entrusted to the Petitioner.
D). Because the Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the assurances if any given by the Petitioner to the Complainants could neither be intended to induce the Complainants to deliver any property nor could they have induced the Complainants to pay or do anything since the Complainant as per the Complaint had paid the entire consideration between December 2007 and March 2011 and further the first encounter of the Complainant with the Petitioner took place allegedly in March 2015, when the Petitioner was not even a director in the Accused No. 4 Company and therefore, he could not have induced the Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....10 of 26 Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State Complainants on behalf of the Accused No. 4 Company. E). Because as per the Chargesheet as well as the Complaint the representations were made by the Accused No. 4 Company in the year 2007. The payments were made between December 2007 and March 2011 and the agreement was executed on 22.02.2013 and therefore the offence if any stood committed at the latest in 2011 whereas the Petitioner who allegedly first met the Complainants in March 2015 was only appointed as a director on 03.10.2016 has been charged with the said offence. F). Further the Learned Trial Court is completely misdirected in law in holding that the Petitioner being a Director of the Accused Company and being the Authorised Signatory of the Bank Account wherefrom the PDCs were issued were enough to constitute the offences of cheating or criminal misappropriation.
4. A prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2024.
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT
5. The prayer has been vehemently opposed by the State as well as by the complainants. It is argued that the revisionists have been correctly charged u/s 406/420/120 B IPC vide the impugned order.
DISCUSSION
6. This court has considered the records as well as the submissions made by the parties.
Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....11 of 26
Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State
Law On Framing Of Charge and Discharge
7. Before delving into the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to refer to the settled law on framing of charge, since the essence of the arguments raised on behalf of revisionist is that the no charge could have been framed against him.
8. Recently, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Varun Bhatia vs. State and Another 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5288, has discussed the different facets of the law in this regard in the following fashion :-
".................................................................................. ................................................................................... "10.The law on charge is contained under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr. P.C. for offences triable in Courts of Session and in cases of Trial of Warrant Cases by Magistrates instituted upon a police report, Sections 239 and 240 of Cr.P.C. deals with the same. For reference, Section 239 and 240 of Cr. P.C. are extracted as under:
239. When accused shall be discharged.--
If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.
240. Framing of charge.--
(1) If, upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried"
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....12 of 26 Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State (2010) 9 SCC 368 has considered the powers of Courts in respect of the framing of charge and discharge and the fact that a prima facie case would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The relevant principles as enunciated in the said decision read as under:
"21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 Cr. P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie cases would depend upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....13 of 26 Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal..."
(Emphasis supplied)
12.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey, (2022) 12 SCC 657, after discussing several judicial precedents, has summed up the law regarding framing of charge as under:
"27. Thus from the aforesaid, it is evident that the trial court is enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of charge and should not act as a mere post office. The endorsement on the charge sheet presented by the police as it is without applying its mind and without recording brief reasons in support of its opinion is not countenanced by law. However, the material which is required to be evaluated by the Court at the time of framing charge should be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting of such material is not to be so meticulous as would render the exercise a mini trial to find out the guilt or otherwise of the accused. All that is required at this stage is that the Court must be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice..."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. Thus, the fundamental basis for forming an opinion regarding the framing of charges revolves around determining whether there is adequate evidence on record to establish, prima facie, the commission of an offence. A 'prima facie' case would imply that there must be enough material or evidence that, when viewed at its face value, gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that the accused may have committed the alleged offence.
14. Another important factor to be considered is the sufficiency of material on record. The Courts have to see as to whether the material placed on record is sufficient enough to establish a prima facie case against an accused and justify initiation of trial against an Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....14 of 26 Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State accused.
................................................................................. ................................................................................."
9. The above position of law shall be applied to decide the fate of the revisionists in this case. The said endeavor requires this Court to narrate the facts of the case so as to have a better understanding of the allegations the accused is facing.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
10. In brief, the allegations are that in the month of October / November 2007, revisionist Sanjeev Srivastava, Director in Assotech Ridge Greens Realty Pvt. Ltd. (company shall be referred to as ARG hereinafter), approached the complainants and made a representation to the effect that ARG has aggregated around 100 acres of land in Faridabad and was in the process of launching a residential project on the said land. Revisionist Sanjeev Srivastav offered plots from the said project to the complainants at a discounted price (pre-launch price) and further represented to the complainants that the prices of the plots shall increase exponentially after the launch of project. It was represented further that possession of plots would be offered by June 2011. Revisionist Sanjeev Srivastav further offered a buy-back option to the complainants, exercisable after one year, in case of payment of entire sale consideration (by the complainants). At that time, it was further represented to the complainants that post dated cheques of the buy back amount would also be issued (to the complainants) at the time of booking of plots. Acting on the said representations, by March 2011, complainants collectively paid a sum of Rs. 1.30 crores against allotment of 11 plots of different sizes vide cheques. Complainants Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....15 of 26 Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State also paid an additional sum of Rs.80 lakhs to ARG against the said 11 plots. Complainants then asked ARG to execute agreements in respect of said transactions, but revisionist Sanjeev Srivastav delayed the same till February 2013. On 22.02.2013, ARG, acting through revisionist Sanjeev Srivastav, executed individual agreements in favour of all the complainants. Vide the said agreements, parties acknowledged the above said transactions in respect of allotment of said 11 plots falling within Sectors-88 and 89, Faridabad. The agreements also reflect a clause for buy back, which ensured the return of a specific sum mentioned therein in case of certain uneventuality. Cheques for the said buy back sums were also issued in favour of the complainants at that very juncture. Possession of plots was to be offered to the complainants within a period of 18 months from the execution of said agreements.
11. Later on, the complainants sought to inquire about the status of said project, but they were put off by revisionist Sanjeev Srivastav with the assurances that the project shall be launched very soon and plots shall be handed over to them. In fact, in February 2014, revisionist Sanjeev Srivastav requested the complainants not to present the buy back sum cheques for encashment as plots were about to be handed over. In August 2014, it was informed to the complainants that possession shall be offered in the year 2015. In March 2015, when complainant visited the site, they noticed that there was no construction whatsoever on the said land. At that time, revisionist Sanjeev Srivastav, one Rajeev Srivastav and revisionist Achla Nand Sharma assured them that plots shall be handed over by the end of 2016. In January 2017, complainants again visited the site of project and again noticed that there was no construction on the land. At that stage, revisionist Sanjeev Srivastav, said Rajeev Srivastav and revisionist Achla Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....16 of 26 Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State Nand Sharma met the complainants and informed them that possession of plots could not be given due to some technical difficulties. However, it was assured that the complainants would be paid a sum of Rs. 6.47 crores as a buy back amount by July 2017. In June 2017, complainants learnt that ARG has sold the land to one Sh. Anandmai Ashram for Rs. 250 crores. Complainants allege that revisionist Sanjeev Srivastav and ARG have illegally sold the said land, which includes the plots allotted to them and have cheated them. Complainants allege that they have suffered a wrongful loss at the hands of revisionist Sanjeev Srivastav, said Rajeev Srivastav, revisionist Achla Nand Sharma as well as ARG.
12. On the basis of said allegations, FIR No. 169/2018 PS EOW was registered. During the course of investigation, Mr. Satya Priya Lakhotia was examined by the police. He made a statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., whereby he reiterated the above mentioned facts. He also stated that prior to the above mentioned transactions with the complainants, revisionist Sanjeev Srivastav, who is also a promoter and Director in M/s Assotech Ltd., had approached Ram Niwas Asha Rani Trust and Subhash Sushila Lakhotia Trust to invest money in two different residential projects (for purchase of flats), one situated in Noida and the other situated in NH-24. Subsequently, revisionist Sanjeev Srivastav offered more returns in case the complainants invested money in Faridabad project (i.e. the project mentioned in the FIR) and also promised to transfer the investments made in Noida and NH-24 projects to the Faridabad project. Thereafter, the complainants made investments, as detailed in the above paragraphs, in the Faridabad project. Police collected and seized the original agreements dated 22.02.2013 executed between the complainants and ARG as well as the original buy back amount cheques. Police then wrote to District Town Planner, Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....17 of 26 Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State Faridabad in order to ascertain as to whether any land measuring 100 acres was allotted to ARG in Sectors -88, 89, Faridabad between 2007 to 2014. The District Town Planner, Fariabad informed the police that no such land was allotted to ARG. Revisionist Sanjeev Srivastav and said Rajeev Srivastav absconded during the course of investigation and were declared as proclaimed persons in the present FIR. Subsequently, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.12.2019 was executed between the complainants and revisionist Sanjeev Srivastav and said Rajeev Srivastav, whereafter the Ld. Magistrate concerned was pleased to recall the order whereby said revisionist Sanjeev Srivastav and said Rajeev Srivastav were declared as proclaimed persons. Both of them joined the investigation as well. Revisionist Achla Nand Sharma also joined the investigation. Finally, ARG, revisionist Achla Nand Sharma, revisionist Sanjeev Srivastav and said Rajeev Srivastav were chargesheeted u/s 406/420/120-B IPC on the ground that all of them made false representations to the complainants to the effect that they were allotted 100 acres of land in Sector- 88, 89 Fariabad by the Town Planner, acting on which representations the complainants parted with a sum of Rs. 1.3 crores via cheques and Rs. 80 lakhs in cash in favour of ARG against said 11 plots.
Decision
13. At the very outset, this Court must note here that the facts of this case, as narrated above, clearly reflect that the offence of criminal breach of trust is not made out against any of the persons chargesheeted by the police, including the revisionists herein. Reason being the fact that there was no 'entrustment' of money by the complainants to any of the persons chargesheeted by the police. Rather, it seems like a plain and simple case Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....18 of 26 Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State of a commercial transaction between the complainants and the persons chargesheeted by the police involving Sale & Purchase of certain immoveable properties. Consequently, none of the accused persons is liable to be charged u/s 406 IPC. Rather, all of them are liable to be discharged u/s 406 IPC. Reliance is placed upon the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. 2024 INSC 626.
14. Now, we proceed to the allegations regarding 'cheating'. As observed earlier, the police has chargesheeted said ARG, one Rajeev Srivastav and the revisionists herein on the ground that they did not acquire any land in Sector-88 and 89 of Faridabad but still they dishonestly and fraudulently induced the complainants to part with a huge sum of money on the pretext of alloting 11 plots in Sector-88 and 89 of Faridabad. At this very juncture, this Court must point out that the above version put forth by the police is in direct contradiction with the version of complainants as mentioned in the FIR. As per FIR, the complainants, after entering into agreements dated 22.02.2013 with ARG for allotment of said 11 plots, visited the 'site' at least two times (paras 10 and 11). In fact, FIR further reflects, in para 12, that complainants learnt that the 'land' has been sold to Sri Anandmai Ashram (by the persons chargesheeted by police). Apparently, the complainants are clearly indicating the existence of a specific parcel of land which was to be developed into a residential project and which was later sold to Sri Anandmai Ashram. But surprisingly, Police has opined that the persons chargsheeted were never possessed of any parcel of the land situated in Sector-88 and 89 of Faridabad. It must be noted here that the above is an inherent contradiction in the story put forth vide the present chargesheet. Prosecution has not bothered to explain as to Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....19 of 26 Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State which story would it like to stick to, the one put forth by the complainants or the other put forth by the police.
15. Be that as it may, this Court shall sift through the materials available in the chargesheet in order to see if any material worth charging the revisionists is available or not. Given the nature of allegations levelled by the complainants and the opinion rendered by Police in the chargesheet, the question under consideration is whether or not the persons chargesheeted by police, including the revisionists, were possessed of any land in Sector- 88 and 89, Faridabad or any right/ interest therein at the time when they executed the agreements dated 22.02.2013 in favour of the complainants. It seems from the chargesheet that Police has assumed that the persons chargesheeted were not possessed of any specific parcel of land in Sector- 88 and 89, Faridabad on the basis of a response given by the District Town Planner, Faridabad to certain queries put to him by the Investigating Officer u/s 91 Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer had sought a clarification from the District Town Planner, Faridabad as to whether any land measuring 100 acres was allotted to ARG in Sector-88 and 89, Faridabad between 2007 to 2014. The District Town Planner, Faridabad gave a response in negative. However, here lies another infirmity. It is an admitted fact that the Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana is only responsible for regulating the development in and around towns in accordance with the local laws of Haryana State. The Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana merely grants licenses for development of land or for change of land use. It does not own, allot or sell any lands. In fact, in Haryana State, the land owning agency is Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). This latter fact is also within the knowledge of Investigating Officer as he issued notices u/s 91 Cr.P.C. to Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....20 of 26 Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) as well on multiple occasions in order to clarify if 100 acres of land was ever allotted to ARG in Sectors-88 and 89, Faridabad between 2007 to 2014. That apart, Investigating Officer has also issued notices u/s 91 Cr.P.C. to all the persons chargesheeted to clarify as to whether any land was allotted to them by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). The above notices issued by Investigating Officer fortify the view of this Court that the land owning agency in Haryana State is Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and not the Department of Town and Country Planning. That being so, it would be appropriate to hold that the above said response given by the Department of Town and Country Planning to Investigating Officer is of no consequence. As such, it could be safely assumed that the Police has not placed any subtantive material on record to show prima facie that the persons chargesheeted were never possessed of any land in Sectors- 88 and 89 of Faridabad or any right/ interest therein. This fact deals a deadly blow to the entire prosecution story.
16. Even otherwise, the response of District Town Planner, Faridabad does not mean that the persons charge sheeted by police could not have privately/ independently acquired land or any rights therein. This Court does not find it appropriate to assume here that the persons chargesheeted by the police were not possessed of any land in Sectors-88 and 89 of Faridabad or rights therein as the FIR consistently alludes otherwise. At the cost of repetition, this Court must observe that the complainants have been repeatedly claiming that they paid visits to the 'site' on multiple occasions and that the 'land' was later sold to Sri Anandmai Ashram by the persons chargesheeted by police. In fact, the agreements dated 22.02.2013 contain clear references, in para 4 under 'Terms and Conditions', to the allotment Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....21 of 26 Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State of plots in Sector-88 and 89 of Faridabad. That apart, the Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.12.2019, executed between the Mr. Satyapriya Lakhotia and the persons chargsheeted, also reflects clear references regarding availability of 100 acre of land situated in Sectors-88 and 89, Faridabad with ARG (the said MOU is a part of chargesheet). However, chargesheet does not reflect that Investigating Officer ever took steps to identify the 'site' referred to by the complainants in the FIR. There is nothing in the chargesheet which suggests that Investigating Officer ever took Shri Satya Priya Lakhotia to the 'site' specified by the complainants in the FIR. Similarly, there is nothing in the chargesheet which suggests that Investigating Officer himself ever went to the said 'site' at any point of time during the course of investigation. Moreover, there is nothing in the chargesheet which suggests that Investigating Officer attempted to join anyone from Sri Anandmai Ashram to verify the sanctity of the allegations of complainants regarding the acquisition of 100 acres of land from the persons chargesheeted. Surprisingly, the Investigating Officer never bothered to confront the either of the parties to seek any clarification in this regard. Although, it is mentioned in the chargesheet that all the persons chargesheeted have joined the investigation, but the chargesheet does not reflect any material which could show that they were ever interrogated, either orally or in writing, with respect to either of the above assertions of complainants or the recitals of the above mentioned documents. In the considered opinion of this Court, Investigating Officer has not investigated the aspect of the availability of land (referred to as 'site' in the FIR) with sincerity, whose existence is clearly insisted upon by the complainants all through out the course of investigation and is reflected in all the documents executed between the parties. For unknown reasons, the Investigating Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....22 of 26 Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State Officer has completely turned the direction of invesigation and has left out very important aspects from his consideration zone. In the absence of any explaination in this regard, it is difficult to uphold the claim of the police that the persons chargesheeted by the police were never possesed of any land situated in Sectors-88 and 89, Faridabad or any rights therein.
17. The above conclusion is sufficient to uproot the allegations of misrepresentation (of facts) against the revisionists, entitling the revisionists to be discharged u/s 420 IPC as well. Reason being the fact that the entire prosecution case is based on the said assumption (of the police) that the persons chargesheeted were not possessed of any land in Sectors- 88 and 89 of Faridabad or any rights therein.
18. Here, this Court also finds it appropriate to refer to certain documents placed on record by revisionist Sanjeev Srivastav during the course of present proceedings. One of them is a Development Agreement dated 24.07.2012 executed between Assotech Ltd. and certain land 'owners' w.r.t development of more than 100 acres of land. The other is a letter dated 12.06.2013, sent by ARG to DG, TCP, Haryana, Chandigarh, seeking a licence to set up a residential plotted colony on land measuring 105 acres at village Palwali, Badshahpur in Sectors-88 and 89, Faridabad. The latter contains a reference to the above mentioned Development Agreement. It is vehemently argued on behalf of revisionists that the said documents completely demolish the claim of the police that ARG was never possessed of any rights in respect of a land parcel measuring 100 acres situated in Sectors-88 and 89, Faridabad. Despite the fact that the said documents seem to have a direct bearing on the fate of present controversy, this Court could not read the above said documents to the prejudice of the prosecution as the same do not form a part of chargesheet. However, the Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....23 of 26 Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State repeated insistence of the complainants that a 'site' (parcel of land) was indeed available with the persons chargesheet by the police, as also the existence of above said documents executed between the parties and the unexplained reluctance of Investigating Officer to verify the most important aspects (flagged in the aforegoing paragraph) has ignited a curiosity in the mind of this Court to ascertain the actual facts. As such, this Court has logged into the website of TCP, Haryana (Webaddress:https://tcpharyana.gov.in/webadmin/license/licenserejected) and has discovered the following upon searching for keyword 'Assotech':-
19. The above information, available on the website of TCP, Haryana, clearly demonstrates that ARG applied for a 'license' in order to set up a residential colony on a parcel of land measuring about 105 acres situated in Sectors-88 and 89, Faridabad. However, it seems that ARG was not granted Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....24 of 26 Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State the requisite license by TCP, Haryana. Since the said information is available on the website of a government department and is available in public domain, this Court could take judicial notice of the same. The above information is a startling revelation of relvant facts and it completly demolishes the entire case of the prosecution. It is difficult to assume that ARG applied for said 'license' without any substantial rights / interest in the said parcel of land. This Court is rather surprised that the investigating officer never bothered to look for a readily available Public record, which would have completely exonerated the persons chargesheeted. As has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for revisionists, the above information indeed triggered the clause 6 under 'Special Terms and Conditions' of the Agreements dated 22.02.2013, executed in favour of complainants by ARG. The said clause clearly specifies that in case ARG is unable to secure the requisite permissions from the competent authority within 8 months (of 22.02.2013), the agreements will be treated as terminated / foreclose and that in the event of such termination / foreclosure, the complainants would be entitled to the buy back amounts specified in the same clause, against which post dated cheques was also handed over to the complainants on 22.02.2013 itself. In such circumstances, complainants were required to present the buy back amount cheques (issued by ARG) for encashment.
Admittedly, the complainants never presented the said cheques (issued by ARG) and the same had turned stale by the time FIR was registered. In such circumstances, this Court finds it difficult to hold that any ingredient of culpable conduct is available against the revisionists in this matter.
20. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Ld. Magistrate has incorrectly assumed culpability of the revisionists as the above discussion reflects that prosecution has not produced materials sufficient enough to Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....25 of 26 Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State charge them u/s 420 IPC. Consequently, the allegations punishable u/s 120B IPC also fall flat to the ground. Both the revisionists namely Sanjeev Srivastav and Achla Nand Sharma are liable to be discharged of the said offences as well.
21. Ordered accordingly.
22. Bail bonds of above revisionists stand cancelled. Their sureties also stands discharged. TCR be sent back along with the copy of this judgment. Revision file be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: LOVLEEN 2025.05.14
Dictated and Announced 18:02:09
+0530
in open Court on 14.05.2025 (Lovleen)
ASJ-03 (South East),
Saket Courts, New Delhi
Cr Rev 194/2025 Sanjeev Srivastava Vs. State Page no....26 of 26
Cr. Rev 165/2025 Achla Nand Sharma Vs. State