Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Pre launch projects in M/S Prabhatam Ventures (P) Ltd vs State on 14 May, 2015Matching Fragments
5. I have heard Sh. Vijay Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist. I have also heard Ms. Rebecca John, Ld. Senior Counsel alongwith Sh. Bhavook Chauhan & Sh. Harsh Bora, Ld. Counsels for the respondents no.2 to 6 and also the submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State. I have also given my prolonged consideration to the controversy in hand. I have also perused the entire material placed before me.
6. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for complainant/petitioner that the accused persons/(respondents no.2 to 6) have cheated the complainant and induced to pay Rs.56,25,000/ for allotment of office/flat in their project. The accused persons also created false sanction letter, which was shown to the complainant and therefore, police investigation is required to find out the author of forgery. Further despite of lodging complaint to DCP, EOW dated 04.04.2012, no action was taken by the police against the accused persons. Ld. Trial Court has erred in holding that the complaint has been filed by the complainant after the gap of seven years, therefore, no police investigation is required. It has not been appreciated that the accused persons induced and persuaded the petitioner to invest the money in prelaunching project, which was yet to M/s Prabhatam Ventures (P) Ltd. Vs. State & Others (M. No.02/2015) Page No.4 of pages 12 be started and the same was not even started at the time of making representation by the accused persons to the petitioner. It has also not been appreciated that the prelaunching projects takes years to be executed and petitioner was waiting for the development in the project, which was assured by the accused persons. Further there is no bar of limitation in criminal law to make the complaint. Ld. Trial Court has also erred in holding that investigation of bank accounts is not required and has also failed to appreciate that police investigation is required to find out as to whether the money paid by the complainant to the accused persons has been utilized and benefited by the accused persons. In his submissions, Ld. Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments: