Delhi High Court - Orders
Sanjay Gupta vs State & Anr on 21 July, 2020
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1507/2020 & CRL.M.A. 7497/2020
SANJAY GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manish Vashisht, Mr. Sameer
Vashisht, Mr. Ricky Gupta, Ms. Urvi
Kapoor, Advs.
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP for
State with SI Rajneesh, Investigating
Officer.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 21.07.2020 As per the record, the respondent no.2 is also arrayed to the petition. Vide the present petition, the prayers made by the petitioner seek the quashing of the Criminal Complaint dated 31.05.2019 as well as Criminal Case No.25043/2019 titled Rajiv Gupta VS. State pending in the Court of the learned CMM, PHC, New Delhi.
Vide order dated 11.06.2020, it was directed that before proceeding further, it was considered essential that a status report is submitted by the State. The status report dated 17.07.2020 has been submitted by the State under the signature of the ACP, EOW, Delhi which states to the effect:
"1.That, a complaint of Mr. Rajiv Gupta, s/o Sh. L R Gupta R/o B- 5, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was received in EOW on 31.05.19. He has been filed it against his brother Sanjay Gupta R/o H.No.47, Armita Sherjill Marg, New Delhi.
2.That, he has alleged in his complaint that certain pieces of land in Khasra No.531/2 and Khasra No.523/1 in village Chandanhulla Delhi were owned by his father L.R. Gupta (HUF). He had filed a Civil Suit for partition, rendition of accounts and injunctions with regard to various HUF properties including the land in question.
3.That, on date of filing of the suit, the HUF comprised of his father Mr. L.R. Gupta, his brother Mr. Sanjay Gupta and himself. He came to know that in 2005 his brother Sanjay Gupta entered into an MOU dt. 30.12.2005 and received a sum of Rs.9.75 crores from M/s Vidhi Construction Pvt. Ltd. in respect of the aforementioned land.
4.That, this has come to his knowledge when he had attended the investigation of Case FIR no.148/18, PS EOW. Above land was sold/transferred or the sale proceeds was never informed to other co-parcener's nor the money so received was distributed by his brother Sanjay Gupta.
5.That, he further mentioned that the day on which above MOU was signed i.e. 30th December, 2005, civil suit filed by him was pending and it was compromised only on 9th January, 2006.
6. That, on that day i.e. 30th December, 2005 he had 1/3rd share in the land in question. The cost of land is more than Rs.330 crores which caused a wrongful loss to the extent of Rs.110 crores (1/3rd share of the complainant) to him and wrongful gain to his brother Sanjay Gupta.
7.That, scrutiny of the complaint and annexed documents reveals that the present complaint has been made by Rajiv Gupta against his brother Sanjay Gupta for entering into an MoU with M/s Vidhi Construction Pvt. Ltd with respect to a HUF property where the alleged along with his father and complainant brother are coparceners.
8.That, a case FIR No.148/18 u/s 420 IPC PS EOW was registered on the complaint of M/s Vidhi Construction Pvt. Ltd. qua the property in question and the accused has been charge sheeted for entering into an MoU without rightful authority. Further the complainant was also made to join the investigation and his statement was recorded in the case.
9. That, prima facie the allegations in the present complaint pertain to a family dispute regarding the claimant of share in the HUF for which the complainant has already availed the necessary recourse by filing of a Civil Suit No. CS(OS) 1968/2003 in Delhi High Court for partition of the property, rendition of the account and injunction with regard to various properties which includes the property in question.
10.That, the allegations levelled in the present complaint regarding misrepresentation of ownership of the property in question has already been investigated in FIR No.148/18, PS EOW and there cannot be subsequent criminal proceeding for the same offence. Accordingly, further enquiry is not warranted on the present complaint and has been closed."
whereby vide averments in para 10 thereof, it has been stated to the effect that further enquiry on the complaint is not warranted and has been closed. The said status report has reflected that the averment in para 1 thereof is based on a complaint received in the EOW dated 21.05.2019 stated to have been made by the respondent no.2 to the present petition. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that the closure report in the matter would be filed. The updated status report be filed by the State.
As regards the prayer that has been made on behalf of the petitioner seeking the quashing of the complaint case that has been filed by the respondent, it is essential that the respondent no.2 is heard in the matter and thus, notice be issued to the respondent no.2 on taking of steps by the petitioner, being returnable for the date 13.08.2020.
It is informed on behalf of the petitioner next date of hearing in the said criminal complaint of the respondent no.2 before the learned trial Court is 15.09.2020.
ANU MALHOTRA, J JULY 21, 2020 vm