Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Plot wrong number in State vs . AtaUrRehman Etc. on 21 February, 2009Matching Fragments
Order on Charge /State Vs. AtaurRehman/ FIR no. 442/05 PS: New Friends Colony ( EOW) page 1 of 13 dtd. 210209
2. After registration of the case during investigation, it was learnt by Investigating Agency that in this transaction certain documents regarding sale of property were executed by the accused Mohini Devi in favour of complainant i.e. Special Power of Attorney for taking physical possession and SPA dated 01112004. But the accused Mohini Devi very cleverly mentioned flat no. as 14D, First Floor, PocketA, Zafrabad, Delhi instead of flat no. 14B, First Floor, PocketA, Zafrabad, Delhi. It is claimed that Prem Nath is the husband of Mohini Devi and he stood as witness on these documents. The case of the prosecution thus, in nutshell, is that complainant was shown one flat number 10A, Ground Floor, DDA Flats, Jafrabad, Delhi and deal was fixed for Rs. 4,48,007/ as consideration of the property and Rs. 75,000/ as commission of accused AtaurRehman but subsequently the complainant was given documents of flat no. 14D, First Floor, PocketA, Zafrabad, Delhi. It has also come in investigation that in favour of Mohini Devi flat no. 14B, First Floor, PocketA, Zafrabad, Delhi was allotted by DDA and all three accused in order to cheat the complainant deliberately mentioned wrong flat number as 14D on the documents executed in favour of complainant. It is also the case of Investigating Agency that complainant deposited a total sum of Rs. 3,59,257/ by way of 8 Demand Drafts on various dates which were directly deposited with DDA towards installments of cost of flat no. 14B. This payment was made by the complainant through DD directly in the DDA. The Investigating Agency/Prosecution say that dishonest intention of all the three accused is clear from the fact that despite receipt of payment no property was Order on Charge /State Vs. AtaurRehman/ FIR no. 442/05 PS: New Friends Colony ( EOW) page 2 of 13 dtd. 210209 transferred nor money was refunded and deliberately the wrong plot number was mentioned on the documents.
6. In the present case, the very fact that a wrong plot number was mentioned on the documents executed in favour of complainant reveals dishonest intentions of the three accused. Dishonest intention is also clear from the fact that till date neither property has been transferred nor payment has been paid back. The contention of Ld. Counsel for accused Mohini Devi and Prem Nath that mentioning of wrong plot number on the documents was a typographical error does not find favour from simple fact that had it been a typographical error, the accused persons would have taken necessary steps to rectify the same as soon as it came to their knowledge but till date neither any rectification of that error has been made nor money is returned and even the flat is not transferred. These facts prima facie reveal sufficient material of conspiracy and dishonest intention of all the three accused which is prima facie sufficient to frame charges against the Order on Charge /State Vs. AtaurRehman/ FIR no. 442/05 PS: New Friends Colony ( EOW) page 12 of 13 dtd. 210209 three accused. Let charges u/s 420/120B IPC be framed against all the three accused.