Delhi District Court
State vs Amit Nagar Etc on 23 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -09,
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT / SAKET COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY MS. SEEMA NIRMAL
Cr CASES 92921/2016
STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR
FIR NO. 235/2003
PS GREATER KAILASH
JUDGMENT
A CNR NO. DLSE020002882006
B Name of the Sh. Amit Mishra S/o Amit Kumar
Complainant Mishra, R/o 1827 Raj Gosh Colony
Krishna Nagar Delhi
C Name of the accused & 1. Amit Nagar S/o Late Sewak his parentage and Ram, R/o D-504 Maya Apartment address 95 IP Extension, New Delhi.
2. Taj Bhardwaj S/o Raj Kumar, R/o B-600/A Brij Vihar Surya Nagar Ghaziabad (UP).
(Already declared PO vide order dated 06.01.2010).
3. Mukesh Banga S/o Kundanlal R/o 192 Janata Quarter Vivek Vihar Delhi.
4. Inderjeet Singh S/o Sardar Jogender Singh R/o 2914 Gurdev Nagar Ludhiana (Punjab).
Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 1 OF 42
STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
FIR NO. 235/2003 SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL 16:06:59 +0530
Date: 2025.07.23
D Offence charged U/s 420 IPC R/w Section 120-B IPC
E Date of commission of 2001
offence
F Date of Institution 31.05.2006
G Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
H Order Reserved on 28.06.2025
I Date of 23.07.2025
Pronouncement
J Final Order Acquitted.
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused no.2 Taj Bhardwaj is already declared PO vide order dated 06.01.2010.
Accused no.1 Amit Nagar along with Ld. counsel Sh. M. Padhi through VC.
Accused no.3 Mukesh Banga in person.
Accused no.4 Inderjeet is absent.
Sh. Santosh Chauriha, Ld. counsel for accused no.3 Mukesh Banga and accused no.4 Inderjeet through VC.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that in the year of 2001, accused persons namely Amit Nagar, Mukesh Banga and Inderjeet Singh along with co-accused namely Taj Bhardwaj S/o Sh. Raj Kumar (since PO) entered into criminal conspiracy to defraud complainant Sh. Amit Mishra, Amit Dhawan, Nitin Dutta and Shailender Rana and cheated them and in pursuance of their conspiracy the accused Mukesh Banga met complainant Amit Mishra Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 2 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL FIR NO. 235/2003 PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23 16:07:04 +0530 and dishonestly induced him to enter into business of computer institution after taking franchise from one Transatlantic Global Solution whose owner is the accused Inderjeet Singh and for this purpose 20-25 Lakhs had to be paid on the pretext that the accused Inderjeet Singh have direct contact with a American Company 2248, Applewood Fairfield California, USA. For this purpose all the accused persons induced the complainant to pay Rs. 8 Lakh as a software fee and Rs. 6 Lakh for franchise fee. On the abovesaid inducement made by the accused persons, complainant persons had arranged their office in Rajouri Garden. In pursuance of abovesaid conspiracy all accused persons had made advertisement on 25.08.2001, 19.04.2001 and 09.10.2001 in different newspapers Nav Bharat Times and Times of India. Thereafter, complainant persons had paid total amount of Rs. 9 Lakhs to all of the accused and the accused had provided them one software which was to pirated, and thus all of the above name accused persons having dishonest intention caused wrongful losses to the complainant persons as mentioned above and wrongful gains to themselves and thereby all the accused had committed an offence U/s 420 IPC R/w Section 120-B IPC.
2. The present case is registered on the joint complaint of complainant Amit Mishra, Amit Dhawan, Nitin Dutta and Shailendra Rana, in which complainant Amit Mishra had stated that after 12 th standard, he had taken admission in Delhi University as well as in Aptech computer where he got acquainted with Mukesh Banga and after completion of course from Aptech, they got busy in their Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 3 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
Digitally signed bySEEMA SEEMA NIRMAL FIR NO. 235/2003 NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23 16:07:08 +0530 PS GREATER KAILASH affairs/own work but they used to talk and meet with each other. Meanwhile, complainant Amit Mishra had joined Spice Net Ltd. Company. One day, accused Mukesh came to him and said that he has brought a very good opportunity for complainant, and he further told that he is opening a Computer Institute in which he is starting with Medical Transcription Work for which he had taken franchise from Transatlantic Global Solution. He further told the complainant that said company is an American company which is 12 years old and in India, its owner is Inderjeet Singh who is grandson of former President Mr. Gyani Zail Singh and who is very honest with his work and is a respectable man. He further told the complainant that that the cost /expenditure for opening up centre is almost about rupees 20-25 lakh and he asked the complainant to take the franchise of said company and open his own computer centre. Then someday, Mukesh came to house of complainant along with his friend Taj Bhardwaj and explained him that it is the really good work. Then Mukesh started visiting the complainant every day at his house and started convincing him to start the work. But the complainant did not agree. Then after some days, he advised the complainant to open a centre as this company has given a job to Mukesh and he told the complainant his salary to be Rs.18,000/- per month he also told that company's Chief Executive Officer has become his friend and told the complainant that if he opens up a centre, then he will give him a job of Rs. 18000/- as well as he will also help him to start work within Rs. 10 lakhs and the rest of the money will have to be paid gradually as earned. He further told the complainant that the the company has a new scheme in which Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 4 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
Digitally signedFIR NO. 235/2003 SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL 16:07:12
Date: 2025.07.23
+0530
the complainant has to open the center which company will be
running on its own and company will give him Rs.1,00,000/- per month and the company itself shall bear all the expenses of running the center. Complainant further stated that one day, said Mukesh took him to the company's centre which was located at B-231, Basement, Greater Kailash, Part-I where he introduced him with the company's Chairman Inderjeet Singh who told him that he had direct contact with American company and also told him the address of the company which was 2248, Applewood Fairfeild, California, USA and the phone number was 7074212774 and the company look after its work on its own. He further told the complainant that by this work, he will get the benefit of Rs.48 Lakhs annually from training and side by side they will start the production work of Medical Transcription, the money of which is already added in the franchise fees. He further told the complainant that on daily basis, 5000 lines will come and after converting these lines into text form, they have to be send to America. He further told the complainant that he will earn approximately 20,000/- per day from that production. From all those sweet talks, Mukesh got the complainant into good impression and while leaving, he handed over him the project report of work. After going through the said project report, complainant got to know that for the purpose of this work, he has to pay Rs.8 Lakhs as a software fees and Rs.6 Lakhs for the Franchise fees and the total expenses of Rs.10-11 Lakhs will come after establishing the centre. However, the complainant was not in a position to do that work solely and for doing this work, he asked his friends namely Amit Dhawan, Nitin Datt and Shailendra Rana, Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 5 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
Digitally signedFIR NO. 235/2003 SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23
16:07:16 +0530
who also agreed to do the said work. Thereafter, they all went to company's office where Mukesh, Taj Bhardwaj, Amit Nagar, and Inderjeet Singh told them that Mukesh Banga will open his one centre in Kingsway Camp and he is also doing job in the said company. After that, Mukest introduced the complainant and his friends with Amit Nagar, CEO of the company and Inderjeet. Inderjeet told them that there is no such work from which they can earn money by investing Rs. 20-25 Lakhs. He also assured the complainant and his friends that t the time of lack of funds, he will help them and told them to search any place in Rajouri Garden where the work will be fruitful. He also told the complainant and his friends that the software fees is Rs.8 Lakhs, and asked them to deposit Rs.2.5 Lakhs on the spot so that they could book Rajouri Garden for them. He further asked the complainant and his friends to deposit Rs. 2.5 lakhs quickly as other two parties were making pressure upon them for opening up a centre in Rajouri Garden. On this, the complainant asked Inderjeet to let those persons to open the centre in Rajouri Garden and why the complainant is being suggested to open up a centre in Rajouri Garden. On this, Inderjeet replied that since the complainant and his friends are friends of Mukesh, and that is why they want more benefit of complainant. He further told the complainant that the software comes from the America and the license fees of software is Rs.8 Lakhs. Then Mukesh and Taj Bhardwaj pressurized the complainant to deposit the money quickly. Thereafter, the complainant along with his friends opened a company which they named Galaxia Infotech and when they asked to pay Rs. 2.5 lakh through cheque to the company, the said Inderjeet and Amit Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 6 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS. Digitally signed SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL FIR NO. 235/2003 NIRMAL 16:07:20 Date: 2025.07.23 PS GREATER KAILASH +0530 Nagar told them that a total sum of Rs.8 Lakhs would be sent at once to America for software, so they have to pay in cash so that they could keep with them safely and as soon as Rs. 8 lakh is completed, they will send this money to the company. The complainant further stated that when they asked Amit Nagar about the Franchise fees, he told them that after paying the software fees, the complainant can pay the Franchise fees. Complainant further stated that Taj Bhardwaj, who introduced himself as the employee of the company, got them a place on rent whose address was J-2/6B, IInd Floor, Rajouri Garden, Delhi. Complainant further stated that they all started the work as per the instruction of the company. The company published an advertisement in the newspaper in which they advertised about scholarship for students and also asked to contact them for opening a franchise centre and introduced themselves as the American Company and gave the address also. The said advertisement was published on 25 August, 2001 by which the complainant and his friends got convinced that the company is actually an American company. After some time, they started giving advertisement in newspapers published on 19 September, 2001 in Navbharat Times and on 09 October, 2001 in Times of India. Thereafter, soon the complainant deposited Rs.8 Lakhs towards Software fees with the company and asked Amit Nagar to install the software in the computer and also asked for software license , to which Amit Nagar replied that the software had come and license will also arrive very soon. Thereafter, Amit Nagar sent a company person for software uploading and when the software was being loaded, the Lab Incharge Jaspreet was also present there. On the Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 7 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
Digitally signedFIR NO. 235/2003 SEEMA by SEEMA
PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23
16:07:25 +0530
next day, Jaspreet told them that software loaded is pirated one, purchased from a local market for Rs. 500/-. On hearing this, the complainant and his friends got perplexed and in the meanwhile they had also paid Rs.1,00,000/- for Franchise fees to the company. They realized that they were trapped badly. Then, the complainant and his friends inquired about the accused persons in the market from where they came to know that they all are fraud. Then the complainant and his friends they realised that they were trapped badly in their fraud as they had already paid Rs.9 Lakhs to the company and also spent Rs.10-11 Lakhs on office expenses. On this, the complainant and his friends reached the company office and asked for American contract papers, on this accused Amit Nagar refused to show the same and said they all are their confidential papers and they cannot show it to them. Now, the complainant and his friends were completely convinced that they have been fooled and their money has been looted. The complainant further stated that since their situation had become worse, they went to meet Mukesh, Amit Nagar, Taj Bhardwaj and requested them to return the money which they had paid to the company. To which, they replied that they are only the employee there and only Inderjeet can return their money. Thereafter, the complainant and his friends met Inderjeet and asked him to return their money, upon which he replied that if complainant and his friends do not want to run the Centre, he will get their Center sold and after that Mukesh, Amit Nagar and Taj Bhardwaj used to come at their centre with fake customers. Complainant further stated that one day, Amit Nagar also deleted his pirated software from their computer. Then for quite a few Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 8 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
Digitally signed FIR NO. 235/2003SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23 16:07:30 +0530 days, when their Centre was not sold out, the complainant and his friends again went to meet Inderjeet then he assured them to return their money with 3% interest. Complainant further stated that after a few days, when complainant and his friends again went to meet Inderjeet at his office, they came to know that company had shut down its office and has fled. This was around February 2002 and no information was given to them about the same. In compulsion, the complainant and his friends had to close their Centre due to which they had suffered lots of financial loss. Complainant further stated that after that, he visited the house of Mukesh many times but he was never found at his house. One day, the complainant and his friends came to know that the company had set up its office at 15, Satya Niketan, Delhi. Thereafter, the complainant and his friends went there and found Inderjeet sitting there who informed them that Mukesh, Amit Nagar and Taj Bhardwaj had fled away and they had also cheated him and once complainant produce said Mukesh, Amit Nagar and Taj Bhardwaj before him, he will return their money. Thereafter, the complainant and his friends went to the house of Mukesh and requested that once he along with his three associates should go to Inderjeet and get back their money. But that was a well thought plan of Indrajit as neither did those three persons meet them together nor they were ready to go to Indrajit. Thereafter, getting tired of their frequent visits to their house, those three persons said that there is no use in going to Inderjeet and those three will return their money, but they did not do so. Whenever the complainant and his friends talked about going to Inderjeet, those three persons used to threaten them that they Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 9 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
FIR NO. 235/2003 SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23 16:07:33 +0530 will file false cases against them with the police because Inderjeet had many acquaintances with police personnels. At the same time, complainant came to know that those three persons along with Inderjeet fooled the other Kingsway Camp Centre partner namely Anil Chaudhary and Mukesh had cheated is partner of Rs.2.5 Lakhs. Complainant further stated that when they talked to Inderjeet again, he refused to let them come alone and said that if the complainant want their money back, then produce all three of them along. Meanwhile, the complainant got the partnership deed of TGS company from someone and thus, they came to know that accused Mukesh Banga, Amit Nagar and Taj Bhardwaj, all three are equal partners and after a lot of investigation, they found out that the address of the company in America which they the accused persons had given to them is the house of relative of accused Taj Bharadwaj. Now the complainant and his friends were completely convinced that accused Mukesh Banga, Amit Nagar, Taj Bhardwaj, Inderjeet, they all together had fooled/cheated them for their own benefit and they had been cheated deliberately and their money had been looted and due to this fraud.
3. On the basis of complaint made to police, present FIR was registered for offence u/s 420 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC. After completion of investigation, final report in the form of charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. for the offences under Section 420 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC was forwarded to the Court against the accused persons namely Amit Nagar, Mukesh Banga, Inderjeet Singh and Taj Bahadur.
Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 10 OF 42
STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
FIR NO. 235/2003 Digitally signed
PS GREATER KAILASH SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23
16:07:37 +0530
4. After taking cognizance of the offence by the court, the all the accused persons were summoned. However, accused Taj Bahadur did not appear and he was declared PO vide order dated 06.01.2010. Thereafter, pursuant to appearance of remaining accused persons, in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, copy of chargesheet was supplied to remaining accused persons and a prima facie case against the accused persons namely Amit Nagar, Mukesh Banga, Inderjeet Singh for commission of offence punishable under Section u/s 420 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC was found to be made out. Accordingly, on 02.04.2016, formal charge for commission of offence punishable under Section u/s 420 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC was framed against the accused Amit Nagar, accused Mukesh Banga and accused Inderjeet Singh to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter, the matter was posted for Prosecution Evidence.
The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, examined the following witnesses; viz.
i) PW-1 Sh. Anil Kumar (Public witness),
ii) PW-2 Sh. Amit Kumar Mishra (complainant),
iii) PW-3 HC Anil Kumar (Second IO),
iv) PW-4 Amit Dhawan (Public witness),
v) PW-5 Sh. Nitin Dutta (Public witness),
vi) PW-6 Sh. Shailender Rana (Public witness),
vii) PW-7 Sh. Santosh Chaurihaa (Public witness),
viii) PW-8 Sh. Ravi Suri (Public witness),
ix) PW-9 SI Usha Yadav (Police witness/duty officer), Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 11 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
Digitally signedFIR NO. 235/2003 SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23
16:07:41 +0530
x) PW-10 Inspector Rajpal Singh (Police witness/IO),
xi) PW-11 ACP Dalip Singh (Police witness/IO),
xii) PW-12 Inspector Naresh Kumar (Police witness/IO),
6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, also relied upon the following documents:
1) copy of partnership deed with Galaxia Infotech as Mark A/Ex. PW2/C (OSR),
2) receipt of amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs as Ex. PW2/A (OSR),
3) advertisements of September and October, 2001 as Mark B colly,
4) copy of partnership deed of accused company as Mark C,
5) complaint to Joint Commissioner of Police, EOW as Ex. PW2/B,
6) copy of receipts given by accused persons as Mark D (colly),
7) prospectus as Mark E,
8) brochure of accused company as Mark F,
9) receipt of Rs. 1 lakh as Ex. PW2/D,
10) rent agreement between Ravi Suri and M/s Galaxia Infotech as already Mark R,
11) disclosure statement of accused Mukesh Banga as Ex. PW3/A,
12) seizure memo of documents as Ex. PW3/B,
13) letter dated 18.12.2001 as Ex. PW5/D1,
14) certified copy of document dated 31.12.2001 is Mark P,
15) document dated 01.07.2001 as Mark Q,
16) DD no.12A Ex. PW9/A,
17) FIR as Ex. PW9/B (OSR),
18) arrest memo of accused Mukesh Banga as Ex.
PW11/A, Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 12 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS. Digitally signed by SEEMA SEEMA NIRMAL FIR NO. 235/2003 NIRMAL Date:
2025.07.23 PS GREATER KAILASH 16:07:45 +0530
19) arrest memo of accused Taj Bahadur as Ex. PW11/B,
20) personal search of accused Taj Bahadur as Ex. PW11/C,
21) arrest memos of accused Inderjeet and Amit Nagar as Ex. PW11/D & Ex. PW11/E respectively and their personal search as Ex. PW11/F & Ex. PW11/G respectively,
22) personal search memo of accused Mukesh Banga as Ex. PW11/H. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
7. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating circumstances led against them during the trial by the prosecution witnesses were put to them. Affording them an opportunity to give his explanation, if any. Accused persons pleaded innocence and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Prosecution has made false and fabricated case against to them. Complainant tried to falsely implicate them. It is stated by accused persons that the transaction was pertaining towards the franchise fees and everything was settled with the complainant vide letter dated 18.12.2001. However, accused preferred not to lead defence evidence and therefore, DE was closed Vide order dated 06.08.2022. Thereafter, the matter was posted for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
8. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. counsel Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 13 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
Digitally signedFIR NO. 235/2003 SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23
16:07:51 +0530
for the accused and gone through the case file carefully and minutely. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused Amit Nagar that present case does not fall within the purview of Section 420 IPC because neither the complainant suffered any wrongful loss nor other accused persons wrongfully gained anything out of the said business and there is no meeting of minds of the accused persons or any conspiracy prior to commitment of any offence as alleged. He has further submitted that from the present case relying upon deposition of the complainants it is clearly established that there was a franchise dealing between the firm of the accused and the firm of the complainant and the complainants after suffering losses with an ulterior motive have registered the false complaint against the accused persons. It is further submitted that one of the complainants had categorically admitted veracity of letter dated 18.12.2001 and had also recognised the signatures appearing on the said letter. It is further submitted that investigation in the present case was not completed as per deposition of PW-10 to PW-12. Hence on these grounds accused persons deserves a respectful acquittal. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused Inderjeet and Mukesh Banga that ingredients of Section 420 as well as ingredients of Section 120B IPC are not proved by the prosecution. It is further argued complainant PW-2 Amit Kumar Mishra was known to the accused (Mukesh) who had shared business opportunity with him being a classmate and thereafter Amit Kumar Mishra after discussion with other complainants had approached to the accused persons for availing the business opportunity by opening this centre. He acted upon a business opportunity. Therefore, it cannot be said that complainants were Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 14 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS. Digitally signed by SEEMA SEEMA NIRMAL FIR NO. 235/2003 NIRMAL Date:
2025.07.23 PS GREATER KAILASH 16:07:55 +0530 induced by the accused persons. It is further submitted that complainants acted upon the business proposal and when they could not succeed, they compromised with each other and executed the letter with no credit and liability and did the business. But after some time for the reasons best known to the complainants, the complainants filed the present complaint. It is further argued that the amount which was said to have been given by the complainants to the accused persons was for the software and license fee which the complainants were in knowledge that they have to pay the same. It is further argued that the complainants have not paid the amount as agreed/required. Even then accused persons supported the complainants to start their business and help them in all possible extent. It is further argued that complainants have not suffered any loss rather it was the accused persons who lost their hard and money who support the business of the complainants. Whereas it is argued by Ld. APP for the state that prosecution has proved all the ingredients of offence under section 420/120B IPC and all accused persons deserve conviction in present case.
9. After hearing rival contentions and after appreciation of evidence on file, I am of the considered view that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and the arguments advanced by the ld. APP for the state cannot be accepted for the reasons given below.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION
10. Having perused the relevant facts and the contentions made Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 15 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS. Digitally signed FIR NO. 235/2003 SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23 16:08:05 +0530 by the parties herein in my considered opinion, following issues require determination in the instant case;
a) whether necessary ingredients of offence punishable under section 420/120B IPC are made out?
b) whether non-fulfilment of promise in present case amounts to mere breach of contract or constitute an offence of cheating?
DISCUSSION OF LAW POINT
11. In order to ascertain the veracity of the contentions made by the parties herein it is imperative to firstly examine whether the relevant ingredients of the offence which the accused herein had been charged with are made out. It would be beneficial if the necessary ingredients of the relevant provisions are reproduced:
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
12. How the ingredients of aforementioned provision are to be Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 16 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS. Digitally signed SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL FIR NO. 235/2003 NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23 PS GREATER KAILASH 16:08:08 +0530 interpreted is detailed in Archna Rana vs. State of UP (2021) 3 SCC 751, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing above provision guided that no offence u/s 420 IPC can be termed to have been committed, unless, the ingredients of Section 415 are shown to have been satisfied, in background of above, it is now worthwhile to reproduce the relevant part of the judgment as below :
i) a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and
ii) the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to
a) deliver property to any person; or
b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security.
Thus, cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC.
13. Cheating is defined under Section 415 of the IPC. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows:
i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him:
ii)The person who was induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or the person who was induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 17 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
FIR NO. 235/2003 SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23 16:08:12 +0530 not do or omit if he were not so deceived.
Thus, a fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 415 IPC. A person who dishonestly induced any person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating."
14. The definition of cheating contains two parts. First comes the main part "whoever, by deceiving any person....." words which obviously apply to the whole section. Then comes the first part "fraudulently, or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property." Then comes Part 2, which is an alternative to subpart 1 viz. "or intentionally induces ..... mind, reputation or property." then comes the closing words "is said to cheat.". The words "and which act or omission .... reputation or property" form a portion of Part 2 and are not applicable to Part 1 at all. (Ishar Das (1908) PR No.10 of 1908 :
(1906) 7 Cri LJ 290.
15. The aforementioned judgment makes it clear that there are two distinct provisions forming part of offence of cheating. First relating to inducement/deception to fraudulently get a transaction of property which may be movable or immovable in nature, whereas second part is more emphatic in connection with act or omission relating to inducement which may cause damage or harm to reputation or property. Both the aforementioned parts are distinct and disjunct; however, "deception" is common in both.
Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 18 OF 42
STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS. Digitally signed
SEEMA by SEEMA
FIR NO. 235/2003 NIRMAL
NIRMAL 16:08:16
Date: 2025.07.23
PS GREATER KAILASH +0530
16. This preposition has been strengthened further in Bavaji (1875) Urrep Cr C 96, Cr R September 23, 1875, wherein it is detailed "the definition of offence of cheating embraces, in some cases, in which no transfer of property is occasioned by the deception and some in which such a transfer occurs; for these cases generally a general provision is made in Section 417 of the Code. For the cases in which property is transferred a more specific provision is made by Section 420 IPC. Again in Iridium India Telecom Ltd vs Motorola Incorporated : AIR 2011 SC 20 it is held that "misleading statements which withhold the vital facts for intentionally inducing a person to do or to omit to do something would amount to deception. Further, in case it is found that misleading statement has wrongfully caused damage to the person deceived it would amount to cheating". In Roop Chand & Anr. Vs. The State 1966 Crl. L.J. 1367 and again in Nadir Ali Barqa Zaidi And Ors. vs The State of U.P. : AIR 1960 All 103 : 1960 Cri LJ 188 (All), it is held "every promise by a person of his future conduct implies the statement of witness about it. Therefore, if a person makes a false representation regarding his future conduct and thereby obtain property from another, the misrepresentation made by him would be an existing state and would fall within the mischief of this section".
17. While discussing the ingredients, the applicability of Section requires the following ingredients as is held in Ram Jas vs. State of UP : AIR 1974 SC 1811:
"1. Deception of any person.
Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 19 OF 42
STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS. Digitally signed
by SEEMA
SEEMA NIRMAL
FIR NO. 235/2003 NIRMAL Date:
2025.07.23
PS GREATER KAILASH 16:08:27 +0530
2. (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person:
(i) to deliver any property to any person, or.
(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property, or
(b) intentionally inducing that person ......."
18. While declaring the purport of deception it is held in Iridium India Telecom Ltd (supra) "nondisclosure of relevant information would also be treated as a misrepresentation of facts leading to deception".
19. Again, in Robert John D'Souza & Ors vs Mr. Stephen V. Gomes & Anr 2015 CriLJ 4040 SC, it is held that essential ingredient of cheating is "deception".
20. In Swami Dhirendra Brahmachari v/s Shailendar Bhushan :1995 CLJ 1580 as well as in Motorola Incorporated vs. Union of India : 2004 CriLJ 1576 (Bom), it is held that "it is causing to believe what is false; or misleading as to a matter of fact or leading into an error".
21. As to what is sufficient to constitute a deception must be decided in each case on its own fact [Ram Nath Kalphar (1905) 2 CLJ 524)].
Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 20 OF 42
STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS. Digitally signed
SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
FIR NO. 235/2003 NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23
PS GREATER KAILASH 16:08:32 +0530
APPRAISAL OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE
22. Now coming back to the fasts of present case, present FIR was registered on joint statement Ex. PW2/B of complainant Amit Kumar Mishra, Amit Dhawan, Nitin Dutta and Shailender Rana Wherein it is stated by Complainant Amit Kumar Mishra that he had known Accused Mukesh Banga since he was doing Aptech computer course where he got acquainted with accused Mukesh Banga. Later on accused Mukesh Banga presented opportunity for complainant, and he further told that he is opening a Computer Institute in which he is starting with Medical Transcription Work for which he had taken franchise from Transatlantic Global Solution. He further told the complainant that said company is an American company which is 12 years old and in India, its owner is Inderjeet Singh who is grandson of former President Mr. Gyani Zail Singh and who is very honest with his work and is a respectable man. He further told the complainant that that the cost /expenditure for opening up centre is almost about rupees 20-25 lakh and he asked the complainant to take the franchise of said company and open his own computer centre. Then someday, Mukesh came to house of complainant along with his friend Taj Bhardwaj and explained him that it is the really good work. Then Mukesh started visiting the complainant every day at his house and started convincing him to start the work. But the complainant did not agree. Then after some days, he advised the complainant to open a centre as this company has given a job to Mukesh and he told the complainant his salary to be Rs.18,000/- per month he also told that company's Chief Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 21 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS. Digitally signed FIR NO. 235/2003 SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23 16:08:43 +0530 Executive Officer has become his friend and told the complainant that if he opens up a centre, then he will give him a job of Rs. 18000/- as well as he will also help him to start work within Rs. 10 lakhs and the rest of the money will have to be paid gradually as earned. He further told the complainant that the the company has a new scheme in which the complainant has to open the center which company will be running on its own and company will give him Rs.1,00,000/- per month and the company itself shall bear all the expenses of running the center. Complainant further stated that one day, said Mukesh took him to the company's centre which was located at B-231, Basement, Greater Kailash, Part-I where he introduced him with the company's Chairman Inderjeet Singh who told him that he had direct contact with American company and also told him the address of the company which was 2248, Applewood Fairfeild, California, USA and the phone number was 7074212774 and the company look after its work on its own. He further told the complainant that by this work, he will get the benefit of Rs.48 Lakhs annually from training and side by side they will start the production work of Medical Transcription, the money of which is already added in the franchise fees. He further told the complainant that on daily basis, 5000 lines will come and after converting these lines into text form, they have to be send to America. He further told the complainant that he will earn approximately 20,000/- per day from that production. From all those sweet talks, Mukesh got the complainant into good impression and while leaving, he handed over him the project report of work. After going through the said project report, complainant got to know that for the purpose of Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 22 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
Digitally signedFIR NO. 235/2003 SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23
16:08:47 +0530
this work, he has to pay Rs.8 Lakhs as a software fees and Rs.6 Lakhs for the Franchise fees and the total expenses of Rs.10-11 Lakhs will come after establishing the centre. However, the complainant was not in a position to do that work solely and for doing this work, he asked his friends namely Amit Dhawan, Nitin Datt and Shailendra Rana, who also agreed to do the said work. Thereafter, they all went to company's office where Mukesh, Taj Bhardwaj, Amit Nagar, and Inderjeet Singh told them that Mukesh Banga will open his one centre in Kingsway Camp and he is also doing job in the said company. After that, Mukest introduced the complainant and his friends with Amit Nagar, CEO of the company and Inderjeet. Inderjeet told them that there is no such work from which they can earn money by investing Rs. 20-25 Lakhs. He also assured the complainant and his friends that t the time of lack of funds, he will help them and told them to search any place in Rajouri Garden where the work will be fruitful. He also told the complainant and his friends that the software fees is Rs.8 Lakhs, and asked them to deposit Rs.2.5 Lakhs on the spot so that they could book Rajouri Garden for them. He further asked the complainant and his friends to deposit Rs. 2.5 lakhs quickly as other two parties were making pressure upon them for opening up a centre in Rajouri Garden. On this, the complainant asked Inderjeet to let those persons to open the centre in Rajouri Garden and why the complainant is being suggested to open up a centre in Rajouri Garden. On this, Inderjeet replied that since the complainant and his friends are friends of Mukesh, and that is why they want more benefit of complainant. He further told the complainant that the software comes from the America Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 23 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS. Digitally signed SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL FIR NO. 235/2003 NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23 16:08:51 +0530 PS GREATER KAILASH and the license fees of software is Rs.8 Lakhs. Then Mukesh and Taj Bhardwaj pressurized the complainant to deposit the money quickly. Thereafter, the complainant along with his friends opened a company which they named Galaxia Infotech and when they asked to pay Rs. 2.5 lakh through cheque to the company, the said Inderjeet and Amit Nagar told them that a total sum of Rs.8 Lakhs would be sent at once to America for software, so they have to pay in cash so that they could keep with them safely and as soon as Rs. 8 lakh is completed, they will send this money to the company. The complainant further stated that when they asked Amit Nagar about the Franchise fees, he told them that after paying the software fees, the complainant can pay the Franchise fees. Complainant further stated that Taj Bhardwaj, who introduced himself as the employee of the company, got them a place on rent whose address was J-2/6B, IInd Floor, Rajouri Garden, Delhi. Complainant further stated that they all started the work as per the instruction of the company. The company published an advertisement in the newspaper in which they advertised about scholarship for students and also asked to contact them for opening a franchise centre and introduced themselves as the American Company and gave the address also. The said advertisement was published on 25 August, 2001 by which the complainant and his friends got convinced that the company is actually an American company. After some time, they started giving advertisement in newspapers published on 19 September, 2001 in Navbharat Times and on 09 October, 2001 in Times of India. Thereafter, soon the complainant deposited Rs.8 Lakhs towards Software fees with the company and asked Amit Nagar Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 24 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
Digitally signedFIR NO. 235/2003 SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23
16:08:56 +0530
to install the software in the computer and also asked for software license , to which Amit Nagar replied that the software had come and license will also arrive very soon. Thereafter, Amit Nagar sent a company person for software uploading and when the software was being loaded, the Lab Incharge Jaspreet was also present there. On the next day, Jaspreet told them that software loaded is pirated one, purchased from a local market for Rs. 500/-. On hearing this, the complainant and his friends got perplexed and in the meanwhile they had also paid Rs.1,00,000/- for Franchise fees to the company. They realized that they were trapped badly. Then, the complainant and his friends inquired about the accused persons in the market from where they came to know that they all are fraud. Then the complainant and his friends they realised that they were trapped badly in their fraud as they had already paid Rs.9 Lakhs to the company and also spent Rs.10-11 Lakhs on office expenses. On this, the complainant and his friends reached the company office and asked for American contract papers, on this accused Amit Nagar refused to show the same and said they all are their confidential papers and they cannot show it to them. Now, the complainant and his friends were completely convinced that they have been fooled and their money has been looted. The complainant further stated that since their situation had become worse, they went to meet Mukesh, Amit Nagar, Taj Bhardwaj and requested them to return the money which they had paid to the company. To which, they replied that they are only the employee there and only Inderjeet can return their money. Thereafter, the complainant and his friends met Inderjeet and asked him to return their money, upon which Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 25 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
FIR NO. 235/2003 NIRMAL 16:09:00 +0530
Date: 2025.07.23
PS GREATER KAILASH
he replied that if complainant and his friends do not want to run the Centre, he will get their Center sold and after that Mukesh, Amit Nagar and Taj Bhardwaj used to come at their centre with fake customers. Complainant further stated that one day, Amit Nagar also deleted his pirated software from their computer. Then for quite a few days, when their Centre was not sold out, the complainant and his friends again went to meet Inderjeet then he assured them to return their money with 3% interest. Complainant further stated that after a few days, when complainant and his friends again went to meet Inderjeetat his office, they came to know that company had shut down its office and has fled. This was around February 2002 and no information was given to them about the same. In compulsion, the complainant and his friends had to close their Centre due to which they had suffered lots of financial loss. Complainant further stated that after that, he visited the house of Mukesh many times but he was never found at his house. One day, the complainant and his friends came to know that the company had set up its office at 15, Satya Niketan, Delhi. Thereafter, the complainant and his friends went there and found Inderjeet sitting there who informed them that Mukesh, Amit Nagar and Taj Bhardwaj had fled away and they had also cheated him and once complainant produce said Mukesh, Amit Nagar and Taj Bhardwaj before him, he will return their money. Thereafter, the complainant and his friends went to the house of Mukesh and requested that once he along with his three associates should go to Inderjeet and get back their money. But that was a well thought plan of Indrajit as neither did those three persons meet them together nor they Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 26 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
FIR NO. 235/2003 SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL 16:09:04 +0530
Date: 2025.07.23
were ready to go to Indrajit. Thereafter, getting tired of their frequent visits to their house, those three persons said that there is no use in going to Inderjeet and those three will return their money, but they did not do so. Whenever the complainant and his friends talked about going to Inderjeet, those three persons used to threaten them that they will file false cases against them with the police because Inderjeet had many acquaintances with police personnels. At the same time, complainant came to know that those three persons along with Inderjeet fooled the other Kingsway Camp Centre partner namely Anil Chaudhary and Mukesh had cheated is partner of Rs.2.5 Lakhs. Complainant further stated that when they talked to Inderjeet again, he refused to let them come alone and said that if the complainant want their money back, then produce all three of them along. Meanwhile, the complainant got the partnership deed of TGS company from someone and thus, they came to know that accused Mukesh Banga, Amit Nagar and Taj Bhardwaj, all three are equal partners and after a lot of investigation, they found out that the address of the company in America which they the accused persons had given to them is the house of relative of accused Taj Bharadwaj. It is alleged that at this point, the complainant and his friends were completely convinced that accused Mukesh Banga, Amit Nagar, Taj Bhardwaj, Inderjeet, they all together had fooled/cheated them for their own benefit and they had been cheated deliberately and their money had been looted and due to this fraud.
23. In his examination in chief in court the complainant has Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 27 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
Digitally signedFIR NO. 235/2003 SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23
16:09:10 +0530
stated that accused persons had told him that he can earn profit in the said business by two method, one by giving coaching to the students and second is by job of medical transcription of 5000 lines per day @8cents per line which would be equivalent to Rs. 20,000/-. He has further stated the accused person told him that if he starts the business accused persons will give him job at the salary of Rs. 18,000/- per month. It is further stated that complainant Amit Mishra along with other persons namely, Amit Dhawan, Nitin Dutta and Shailender Rana paid total amount of Rs. 3.5 lakhs till July, 2001 in different installments, the receipt of which are PW2/A(OSR). However the said document is a letter of Intent issued by Transatlantic Global Solutions, on which the the receipt of Rs. 2,50,000/- is issued for Rs, 1,40,000/- in cash and Rs. 1,10,000/- by way of cheque. Now it is an admitted fact by the complainant that in original statement Ex.PW2/A, as well as in his examination in court, and also by other alleged victims i.e. Amit Dhawan(PW-4), Nitin Dutta(PW-5) and Shailender Rana (PW-
6), they wanted to pay Rs. 2.5 lakhs in cheque however accused persons told them not to pay money in form of cheque rather to pay the same in cash because accused persons need Rs. 8 lakh collectively to pay the same for software license in America. Document Mark-D which are photocopies of other receipts, also shows receipts of Rs. 60,000/- and 50,000/- against the cheque which has been dishonoured at books. Whereas Ex.PW2/A, itself proves that cheque was also issued for partial payment of the said amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs. It also stated by PW-4, Amit Dhawan in his examination in chief that "from July 2001 to October 2001, we paid Rs. 9 lakhs to the accused persons Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 28 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
Digitally signedFIR NO. 235/2003 SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23
16:09:15 +0530
out of which Rs.6 lakhs were paid in cash and Rs. 3 lakhs were paid through cheque.", Which is in clear contradiction to the statement of complainant as well other alleged victims i.e. Amit Dhawan (PW-4), Nitin Dutta (PW-5) and Shailender Rana (PW-6) itself. Details of the said cheques, have not been placed on record by prosecution itself, and benefit of same shall be given to the accused persons.
24. Further, it is stated by the complainant as well as other alleged victims i.e. Amit Dhawan(PW-4), Nitin Dutta(PW-5) and Shailender Rana (PW-6), that an amount of total Rs. 9 lakhs were paid by them to the accused persons for the purpose of the said business, however no documentary proof has been placed on record for payment of Rs. 9 lakhs. The complainant is a graduate in B.A(Hons) Political Science, and can be considered to be well educated person. In such a scenario it is not expected from complainant to hand-over such a huge amount to the accused persons without any documentary proof of the same, especially when the same is in the nature of business transaction and alleged accused persons were only acquaintances of the complainant as stated by the complainant himself.
25. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that complainant Amit Mishra along with other alleged victims i.e. Amit Dhawan(PW-
4), Nitin Dutta(PW-5) and Shailender Rana (PW-6), entered into a partnership with the name of M/s Galaxia Infotech, to do the business on agreement with accused persons i.e Transatlantic Global solutions, however the said partnership deed Ex. PW2/C (OSR), does not Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 29 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
Digitally signedFIR NO. 235/2003 SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23
16:10:53 +0530
mention any detail about the same. The only thing mentioned is that complainant Amit Mishra along with other alleged victims i.e. Amit Dhawan(PW-4), Nitin Dutta(PW-5) and Shailender Rana (PW-6) had entered into a "partnership to carry on business of computer institute imparting training in field of medical transcription which is related to information technology enabled service industry." This partnership deed Ex. PW2/C (OSR), does not mention that the business in partnership was sourced from the accused persons or from the alleged Transatlantic Global Solution after obtaining any franchise from Transatlantic Global Solution which allegedly belong to the accused persons. However, it is stated by the complainant Amit Kumar Mishra in his cross-examination that the main business of the firm was to take the franchise of Transatlantic Global Solution and to run the centre. It is also admitted by complainant Amit Kumar Mishra in his cross- examination that they had not mentioned in the partnership deed about the franchise business. It is also to be noticed that Ex.PW2/A (OSR), letter of intent (Ex.PW2/A) clearly states that "Received sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rs. Two lakh fifty thousands only) from Amit Dhawan the booking amount of franchise centre of Transatlantic institute of Medical Transcription, at Rajouri garden, New Delhi. This letter of Intent is valid for thirty calender days beginning 12th July 2001 to ending 11th August 2001. The franchise agreement has to be signed within the period and balance amount as laid down in proposal has to be paid." Thus total franchise amount was to be paid till 11th August 2001, However it is stated in the joint statement the complainant Amit Mishra as well other alleged victims i.e. Amit Dhawan (PW-4), Nitin Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 30 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL FIR NO. 235/2003 PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23 16:10:29 +0530 Dutta (PW-5) and Shailender Rana (PW-6) who are all the partners of Galaxia Infotech, Ex.PW2/A that they had paid Rs. 8 lakh towards software fees and Rs. 1 lakh towards Franchise fee. Now, It is stated by Complainant in his examination in chief that "Accused Inderjeet singh told us that they would charge Franchise fees from us as we would start earning income from the business." As per Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the exclusion of oral by documentary evidence, which essentially states that when the terms of a contract, grant, or other disposition of property are reduced to a written document, or when any matter is required by law to be in writing, the document itself (or secondary evidence of its contents, if admissible) is the primary evidence, and oral evidence is generally not admissible to prove those terms. As per the document Mark-E also franchise fee is stated to be Rs. 6 lakhs. Now if it is alleged there was later agreement between parties then section 92 of Indian Evidence Act would come into operation the exclusion of oral by documentary evidence.
26. A Bench of learned three Judges of the Supreme Court in Bai Hira Devi and others v. Official Assignee of Bombay (AIR 1958 SC 448). Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.B.Gajendragadkar has explained the similarities and dissimilarities of Sections 91 and 92 of Evidence Act in the following words:
"......... The normal rule is that the contents of a document must be proved by primary evidence which is the document itself in original. Section 91 is based Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 31 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
FIR NO. 235/2003 NIRMAL 16:11:00 +0530
Date: 2025.07.23
PS GREATER KAILASH
on what is sometimes described as the "best evidence rule." This best evidence about the contents of a document is the document itself and it is the production of the document that is required by S. 91 in proof of its contents. In a sense, the rule enunciated by S. 91 can be said to be an exclusive rule inasmuch as it excludes the admission of oral evidence for proving the contents of the document except in cases where secondary evidence is allowed to be led under the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act.
5.Section 92 excludes the evidence of oral agreements and it applies to cases where the terms of contracts, grants or other dispositions of property have been proved by the production of the relevant documents themselves under S. 91; in other words, it is after the document has been produced to prove its terms under S. 91 that the provisions of S. 92 come into operation for the purpose of excluding evidence of any oral agreement or statement, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from its terms. The application of this rule is limited to cases as between parties to the instrument or their representatives in interest. There are six provisos to this section with which we are not concerned in the present appeal. It would be noticed that Ss. 91 and 92 in effect Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 32 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS. Digitally signed SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL FIR NO. 235/2003 NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23 16:11:03 +0530 PS GREATER KAILASH supplement each other. Section 91 would be frustrated without the aid of S. 92 and S.92 would be inoperative without the aid of S.91. Since S. 92 excludes the admission of oral evidence for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from the terms of the document properly proved under S. 91, it may be said that it makes the proof of the document conclusive of its contents. Like S. 91, S. 92 also can be said to be based on the best evidence rule. The two sections, however, differ in some material particulars. Section 91 applies to all documents, whether they purport to dispose of rights or not, whereas S. 92 applies to documents which can be described as dispositive. Section 91 applies to documents which are both bilateral and unilateral, unlike S. 92 the application of which is confined only to bilateral documents. Section 91 lays down the rule of universal application and is not confined to the executant or executants of the documents. Section 92, on the other hand, applies only between the parties to the instrument or their representatives in interest. There is no doubt that S. 92 does not apply to strangers who are not bound or affected by the terms of the document. Persons other than those who are parties to the document are not precluded from giving extrinsic evidence to contradict, vary, add to or subtract from the Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 33 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
FIR NO. 235/2003 SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL 16:11:07 +0530
Date: 2025.07.23
terms of the document. It is only where a question arises about the effect of the document as between the parties or their representatives in interest that the rule enunciated by S. 92 about the exclusion of oral agreement can be invoked. This position is made absolutely clear by the provisions of S. 99 itself. Section 99 provides that "persons who are not parties to a document or their representatives in interest, may give evidence of any facts tending to show a contemporaneous agreement varying the terms of the document." Though it is only variation which is specifically mentioned in S. 99, there can be no doubt that the third party's right to lead evidence which is recognized by S. 99 would include a right to lead evidence not only to vary the terms of the document, but to contradict the said terms or to add to or subtract from them."
Subsequently, the supreme court in Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani (AIR 2003 SC 2418) followed the abovesaid decision and reiterated the principle.
27. Thus, oral evidence of the fact that complainant and other alleged victims were exempted from payment of franchise fee by the accused Inderjeet Singh, is not admissible in evidence.
Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 34 OF 42
STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS. Digitally signed
by SEEMA
FIR NO. 235/2003 SEEMA NIRMAL
PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL Date:
2025.07.23
16:11:12 +0530
28. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that Amit Nagar had sent a company person for uploading the software and when the software was being loaded, the Lab Incharge Jaspreet was also present there. On the next day, Jaspreet told them that software loaded is pirated one, purchased from a local market for Rs. 500/-. No computer device has been recovered during investigation to prove that a fake software was provided by the accused persons to the complainant and even Jaspreet, who is alleged to be the lab technician is neither examined as a prosecution witness nor arrayed as one. Thus, the prosecution had material witnesses to support the case of the prosecution but his name has not even been cited as witness in the list of witnesses and as such best witness have been withheld by the prosecution and benefit of the same shall go to the accused. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Amit Kantiwal v. Mukesh Mittal (Punjab And Haryana) CRM-A No.863-MA of 2014 (O&M). D/d. 30.03.2015.
29. Now, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2000) 4 SCC 168 19, has observed:-
"15. ....that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time to inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 35 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
FIR NO. 235/2003 Digitally signed
PS GREATER KAILASH SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
NIRMAL 16:11:17
Date: 2025.07.23
+0530
criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise..."
30. In another decision reported Mitesh Kumar Jha v. State of Karnataka and others 2021SCCOnlineSC976 6 VJPJ, CRLP.No.8295/2022 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"41. Having considered the relevant arguments of the parties and decisions of this court we are of the considered view that existence of dishonest or fraudulent intention has not been made out against the Appellants. Though the instant dispute certainly involves determination of issues which are of civil nature, pursuant to which Respondent No. 2 has even instituted multiple civil suits, one can by no means stretch the dispute to an extent, so as to impart it a criminal colour. As has been rightly emphasized upon by this court, by way of an observation rendered in the case of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s. NEPC India Ltd & Ors., as under:-
Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 36 OF 42
STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS. Digitally signed
SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
FIR NO. 235/2003 NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23
PS GREATER KAILASH 16:11:21 +0530
"14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. It was also observed:-
13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors....There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."
31. Complainant Amit Kumar Mishra has stated in his original statement Ex.PW2/B that they had given Rs. 8 lakh as software fees, one lakh as franchise fee to accused persons and he Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 37 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
Digitally signed by SEEMAFIR NO. 235/2003 SEEMA NIRMAL
PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL Date:
2025.07.23
16:11:25 +0530
has also stated in his cross-examination that they paid Rs. One lakh franchise fee out of six lakhs to Transatlantic Global Solutions. Complainant has stated in his examination in chief that accused persons had given him one prospectus (Mark E), he read the same and found fee of the software was Rs.8 lakhs, Franchise fee was Rs. 6 lakhs and Rs. 10-11 lakhs for development of infrastructure. Whereas letter of intent (Ex.PW2/A) clearly states that "Received sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rs. Two lakh fifty thousands only) from Amit Dhawan the booking amount of franchise centre of Transatlantic institute of Medical Transcription, at Rajouri garden, New Delhi. This letter of Intent is valid for thirty calender days beginning 12 th July 2001 to ending 11th August 2001. The franchise agreement has to be signed within the period and balance amount as laid down in proposal has to be paid." Further PW-5 Nitin Dutta has stated in his cross-examination when he was asked to explain letter dated 18.12.2001 (Ex.PW5/D1) "our firm issued this letter at the time when we came to know that we had been cheated from accused persons. My signatures are on point A of Ex.PW5/D1. I recognise signatures of Amit Dhawan at point B, signatures of Shailender Rana at point C and signatures of Amit Mishra at point D." Thus document Ex.PW5/D1 has been admitted by PW-5 Nitin Dutta who is also one of the victims of alleged cheating. However, as per the document Ex.PW5/D1 which has been addressed to the Chief Executive officer of Transatlantic Global Institute of medical Transcription, by the complainant Amit Mishra as well other alleged victims i.e. Amit Dhawan (PW-4), Nitin Dutta (PW-5) and Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 38 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
Digitally signedFIR NO. 235/2003 SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23
16:11:29 +0530
Shailender Rana (PW-6) who are all the partners of Galaxia Infotech on behalf of the Galaxia Infotech, that "As per our discussion, we made part payment for franchise fee for opening an institute at Rajouri Garden but due to financial problems, we are unable to make balance payment of the franchise amount. As we are also unable to run the institute, we are compelled to take this stringent decision. We are hereby request you to adjust the amount paid as franchise fees towards the expenses incurred for material supplied to us and other supportive activities rendered to us. We shall be ever grateful to you and shall not claim anything against the Transatlantic institute of medical transcription. It is very much clear from the said letter dated 18.12.2001 (Ex.PW5/D1), letter of intent (Ex.PW2/A) and prospectus (Mark E) relied upon by the prosecution that complainant Amit Mishra as well other alleged victims i.e. Amit Dhawan (PW-4), Nitin Dutta (PW-5) and Shailender Rana (PW-6) though entered into an agreement with accused persons to take franchise from accused persons, however there was a failure on the part of the complainant Amit Mishra as well other alleged victims i.e. Amit Dhawan (PW-4), Nitin Dutta (PW-5) and Shailender Rana (PW-6), to make entire payment of franchise fee as per agreement and accordingly by mutual agreement the business operations were ceased. Further, it is stated by the complainant in his cross-examination that "it is wrong to suggest that it was not the part of the business of the transatlantic Global solutions to attract and arrange the students." Perusal of the document Mark-E i.e. the prospectus which has been relied Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 39 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
Digitally signedFIR NO. 235/2003 SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23
16:11:34 +0530
upon by the prosecution, does not show anywhere that it was the responsibility of Transatlantic Global Solution to attract students. It is also admitted in his cross-examination that as per his knowledge only five students took admissions and also that attracting students was not part of the business activity. From the abovesaid facts it can be culled out that that though there was agreement between the complainant and other alleged victims and the accused persons, however due to the financial failure on the part complainant Amit Mishra(PW-2) and other alleged victims i.e. Amit Dhawan(PW-4), Nitin Dutta(PW-5), for payment of the Franchise fees as per their agreement with the accused persons and as well as failure of business for attracting sufficient number students.
32. Further, complainant Amit Kumar Mishra has stated in his cross-examination, Nitin Dutta (PW-5), Amit Dhawan (PW-4) and PW-6 Shailender Rana have stated in their examination in chief that one place at Rajouri Garden was arranged by accused Taj Bhardwaj for renting for the purpose of business. In support of its case prosecution has examined PW-8 Ravi Suri, who it the registered owner of the said property, however he has stated that he had let out the abovesaid property to Amit Mishra. He has nowhere stated that the said premises was let out at instance of any of the accused persons as alleged by the prosecution. Which is in clear contradiction to statements of complainant and other alleged victims.
33. Further, prosecution has examined a public witness PW-1 Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 40 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS. Digitally signed SEEMA by SEEMA FIR NO. 235/2003 NIRMAL NIRMAL 16:11:39 Date: 2025.07.23 PS GREATER KAILASH +0530 Anil Kumar who has stated in his examination in chief that he was also cheated for an amount of Rs. 10.5 lakh by accused persons. However, during cross-examination, he has been confronted in material particulars with his previous statement given to the police Ex. PW1/D. A three Judges' bench of Hon'ble Supeme court of India held recently in Darshan Singh Vs State [2024] 1 S.C.R. 248 : 2024 INSC 19 that "Prosecution cannot seek to prove a fact during trial through a witness which such witness had not stated to police during investigation. The evidence of that witness regarding the said improved fact is of no significance." Further it is alleged that PW-1 Anil Kumar had given a complaint dated qua the same allegations to joint commissioner of police however no details are furnished of any such complaint which are mere allegation without any corroboration of the same. Thus, statement of PW-1 is not sufficient convict accused persons.
34. Further, it is well settled that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Clear and unimpeachable evidence is necessary to convict a person. This court finds that such evidence is absent in this case. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Anil s/o Shamrao Sute & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2013(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 541.
35. Coming back to the facts of the present case and the evidences led by the prosecution, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the accused persons had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise or that failure of the business agreement was due to the deception played by accused persons upon Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 41 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
Digitally signedFIR NO. 235/2003 SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
PS GREATER KAILASH NIRMAL 16:11:43
Date: 2025.07.23
+0530
the complainant and the other alleged victims. Letter dated 18.12.2001 (Ex.PW5/D1) has been admitted by PW-5 Nitin Dutta who is also one of the victims of alleged cheating along with signatures of complainant as well as other alleged victims, as per the same the partnership business of the alleged victims was closed due to financial problems on account of non-payment of balance payment of franchise fee.
36. In the light of above discussion and reasons, this Court is of the considered view that evidence led by the prosecution is highly insufficient and is discrepant on the material aspects of this case. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused present in the Court beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts. In the instant case prosecution has failed to prove its case and accordingly, accused persons Amit Nagar, Mukesh Banga and Inderjeet Singh are hereby acquitted of the charges leveled against them by the prosecution. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance with liberty to the prosecution to revive the same as and when accused Taj Bhardwaj is apprehended and produced before the Court. SEEMA by Digitally signed SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23 16:11:47 +0530 Announced in the Open (SEEMA NIRMAL) Court on 23.07.2025 JMFC-09/ SED/ Saket Courts, New Delhi/ 23.07.2025 It is certified by me that this judgment contains 42 pages and each page is digitally signed by me. SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.23 16:12:06 +0530 (SEEMA NIRMAL) JMFC-09/ SED/ Saket Courts, New Delhi/23.07.2025 Cr CASES 92921/2016 PAGE 42 OF 42 STATE Vs. AMIT NAGAR & ORS.
FIR NO. 235/2003PS GREATER KAILASH