Delhi District Court
S.N.G. Builders Pvt. Ltd vs M/S. Nav Vasant Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd on 23 November, 2017
Criminal Revision No.260/2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI : EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. : 260/2017
Under Section : 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
CC No. : 54421/16
PS : Mandawali
CNR No. : DLET01-011746-2017
In the matter of :-
S.N.G. BUILDERS PVT. LTD.
Through its Directors Sh. Sanjay Gupta,
O/o. A-40, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110092.
............PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. M/S. NAV VASANT INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.
O/o. B-23, Kailash Colony, New Delhi.
Also at : 3902, First Floor,
Khirki Taffazual Hussain, Urdu Bazar,
Jama Masjid, Darya Ganj, Delhi-110006.
Also at : 419, Ocean Complex,
Sector-18, Noida, G.B. Nagar, U.P. 201301.
2. SH. TIRATH RAM SHARMA
Director of M/s. Nav Vasant Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.
R/o. I-243, Delta-2, Greater Noida,
Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. 201306.
3. SH. SHABUDDIN SIDDIQUE,
Director of M/s. Nav Vasant Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.
R/o. 1515, 2nd Floor, Qasimjan Street,
Ballimaran, Delhi-110006.
4. SH. SATISH KUMAR GADDH
AR/Director of M/s. Nav Vasant Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.
S/o. Late Captain Sant Dass,
R/o. J-1876, C.R. Park, New Delhi-110019.
5. SH. PRATAP SARPAL
AR/Director of M/s. Nav Vasant Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.
S/o. Sh. C.L. Sarpal,
R/o. B-23/25, Kailash Colony, Delhi.
Page 1 of 8 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Revision No.260/2017
6. SH. RAM AWATAR SHARMA
AR/Director of M/s. Nav Vasant Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.
S/o. Sh. Tirath Ran Sharma,
R/o. I-243, Delta-2, Greater Noida,
Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. 201306.
7. STATION HOUSING OFFICER
PS Mandavali, Delhi.
..........RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 13.10.2017
Date of Receiving : 14.10.2017
Date of reserving order : 18.11.2017
Date of pronouncement : 23.112017
Decision : Petition is dismissed.
ORDER
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.08.2017, passed by trial court in a complaint case titled as M/s. SNG Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Nav Vasant Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. bearing CC No.54421/2016, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Vide impugned order dated 17.08.2017, trial court dismissed application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C moved by petitioner herein. BRIEF FACTS OF THIS CASE :-
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are that petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as complainant) through its director Sh. Sanjay Gupta made a complaint against M/s. Nav Vasant Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. (respondent no.1 herein) and its five directors (i.e. respondent no.2 to 6 herein), for offences punishable under Section 120B/406/420/427/467/471/474 IPC, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C to register an FIR against them. In his complaint, complainant alleged that respondent no.1 through its directors had offered a plot measuring 8000 square meters to the complainant, Page 2 of 8 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.260/2017 which was largely known as 12 in UPSIDC Residential Scheme site CC Surajpur, Greater Noida, GBN, U.P for the construction of group housing. On 01.11.2011 respondents showed themselves as owners of that property. On the representation and offer by respondents no.2 and 3, complainant believed it to be true and under the influence that the accused are the owners of the above said plot, advanced earnest money of Rs.10 lakh on 18.06.2012 and thereafter, paid another amount of Rs.11 lakh through RTGS and a sum of Rs.29 lakh on 12.07.2012 by way of cash, against which respondents no.2 and 3 gave handwritten receipt to the complainant. Thus, respondents induced the complainant to pay total sum of Rs.50 lakh. Thereafter, respondents entered into an agreement dated 16.07.2012 for the aforesaid purpose, which was reduced into writing and subsequently signed by respondents no.2 and 3 being directors of respondent no.1 firm. On 08.02.2012 respondents showed certain documents to the complainant and handed over the same to him, in order to give effect to the criminal conspiracy and to cheat the complainant.
3. When complainant enquired from Mr. Pankaj Gupta, authorized representative of M/s. Himcon Engineering Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at 182, Pratap Khand, Zilmil Colony, Delhi, in respect of the status/location of aforesaid property, then he clearly denied about the location of the aforesaid property and said that the documents were forged and fabricated. Thereafter, on 25.07.2013 complainant personally went to the office of the respondents and requested to refund his money, but instead of refunding the money respondents started threatening and abusing the complainant. Thereafter, on 12.09.2013 complainant filed a written complaint against all the respondents in police station Mandawali, wherein complainant requested SHO PS Mandawali to lodge the FIR for Page 3 of 8 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.260/2017 offence under Section 506/406/420/467/468/469/120B IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
4. Ld. MM on appreciation of status report filed by SHO and the materials placed on the record, refused to direct for registration of FIR, mainly on the grounds that there was no averment and material which could invite criminal offences as mentioned in the application. GROUNDS : -
5. Being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 17.08.2017, petitioner has preferred this revision petition on the following relevant grounds :-
● That the trial court grossly erred in not considering the fact that the offenders have committed mischief by causing loss or damages of Rs.50 lakh to petitioner, which is punishable under Section 425 IPC.
● That the trial court did not appreciate that accused persons used forged document as genuine document having the complete knowledge of it and availed the amount illegally and the said amount have been misappropriated by all accused persons jointly, which attracts penal provisions of Section 34/120B/471/474 of IPC.
● That the trial court did not appreciate that offences could be proved and revealed only after conducting investigation, seizure of suit property, examining forged document, which could be done by an investigating agency. That custodial interrogation may also be necessitated as to find out that who forged the documents and how the revenue stamps had been forged or printed or how procured and the nexus to commit crime.
● That the trial court did not see the allegations made in the complaint, which fulfill all the ingredients for initiating the criminal Page 4 of 8 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.260/2017 machinery in motion and the extent which reveals that all criminality and deliberate intentions of the accused are apparent. ● That the trial court ought to have followed the law laid down by the apex court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992, Cr.LJ527 (SC):AIR 1992(SC)601, wherein it was held that if any information is disclosed before the police officer, the police officer is liable to register a case on the basis of such informations.
● That the trial court grossly erred by not seeing the fact that offences committed by the accused no.1 to 6 are cognizable and are serious in nature. That in past it has been noticed by various courts that in such scams, huge proliferations and irreparable losses were caused to the persons like petitioner, which cannot be compensated.
● That the trial court committed an error by observing that the breach of contract is a civil dispute and the civil court should decide as to who is the defaulter and who should receive compensation on account of breach of contract and for this a proper civil suit before the appropriate forum would lie. APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS, FINDINGS & DECISION :-
6. Ld. counsel for petitioner argued on the same lines of grounds as taken in the petition. She referred to agreement dated 16.07.2012 executed between M/s. Nav Vasant Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. SNG Builders Pvt. Ltd., to submit that respondent no.1 through other respondents had deceived the petitioner to enter into this agreement, while claiming that they were owner of land measuring 8000 square meters. However, after making some payments petitioner came to know that they were not owners of any land and therefore, respondents have committed cheating on the basis of forged documents.
Page 5 of 8 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.260/2017
7. On perusal of agreement dated 16.07.2012, I find that respondents did not claim to be owner of any piece of land as such. The language used therein is reproduced here for ready reference and appraisal "now both the parties have mutually agreed to join hands in the construction of group housing in an area of 8000 square meters in the plot largely known as 12 in UPSIDC Residential Scheme site CC Surajpur, Greater Noida, GBN, U.P.
1. That the party of the first part (respondent no.1) shall be solely responsible to provide land of 8000 square meters in an approved residential area free of encumbrance in the constructions......"
8. From the language used and mentioned herein above, one can find that there was no claim at all to own any particular piece of land. When a person claims to be owner of a particular piece of land, then complete particulars of such property is mentioned in the agreement, thereby mentioning relevant plot number and descriptions of surroundings. Clause 1 of the agreement referred and relied by the complainant, rather shows that respondent no.1 company had taken responsibility to provide such land. It means that to arrange and provide such land was within duty of respondent no.1 and other part of this agreement shows that the responsibility of raising construction of flats was given to petitioner herein. Clause 11 of this agreement further shows that petitioner herein was to pay advance money of Rs.3 crore on or before 31.07.2012 and such payment was essence of such contract. As per clause 16 of the agreement, all the payments for the land was to be made by respondent no.1. This clause again goes on to show that payments were to be made for the land by the respondents, which means that the land was not already owned by Page 6 of 8 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.260/2017 them. If the land would have been promised to be owned by them, then there was no relevance of clause 16 in the agreement, especially when clause 6 of the agreement had already defined share of both the parties towards cost of land and cost of construction.
9. Another important aspect emerging out of the case of complainant is that though complainant alleged that respondents had claimed to be owner of plot on the basis of certain documents, but no such documents have been placed on the record by the complainant. Complainant has alleged such documents to be forged documents. In para 5 of the complaint, complainant has mentioned that such documents were handed over to him, still such documents were not placed on the record. Which shows that no such document was actually given to the complainant. Hence, the allegations of forgery of documents does not stand. Such allegations could have been appreciated only when the alleged forged document would have been produced before the court.
10.It does not sound possible and logical that the petitioner would have entered into the agreement dated 16.07.2012 and also made payments consequent to the same, without obtaining at least copy of title documents of the land, if it was so claimed to be owned by respondents. No prudent person is expected to make payment for such huge amount and to enter into such a big project, merely on the basis of oral assurance of other party. This situation also corroborates the inference raised on the basis of language used in the agreement dated 16.07.2012 to the effect that respondents did not claim to be owner of any particular piece of land.
11.Complainant has also alleged about criminal breach of trust, however, there is no allegation of delivery of any property as entrustment to the respondents. The payments which were made by Page 7 of 8 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.260/2017 the complainant were made in consequence to agreement dated 16.07.2012 and as per same agreement, complainant had promised to make payment of Rs.3 crore up to 31.07.2012. It is not the case of complainant that he had even paid complete amount of Rs.3 crore. The claim of complainant is that it paid Rs.50 lakh only. In any situation, the allegations made by complainant regarding cheating and forgery is not made out from the agreement referred and relied upon by the complainant.
12.As far as other alleged offences mentioned in the complaint i.e. under Section 506/406/468/469/120B IPC read with Section 34 IPC are concerned, even I find that the complaint is silent in respect of any concrete allegation leading to such offences. In these circumstances, I find that ld. MM had correctly dismissed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, as well as refused to even treat this application as complaint for want of disclosure of any offence. Hence, present criminal revision petition is dismissed.
13.TCR be sent back along with copy of order to the trial court. File be consigned to record room, as per rules.
Digitally signed by PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PULASTYA Location: Court
PRAMACHALA No.3, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi
Date: 2017.11.25
14:16:57 +0530
Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA)
today on 23.11.2017 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East
(This order contains 8 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Page 8 of 8 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi