Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and it has been settled by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Dehradun (for short "RERA"), and the petitioners have been directed to pay certain amount to the informant, which they are paying. It is argued that if the criminal case is allowed to proceed, it would not serve any useful purpose; the chances of conviction would be bleak. Therefore, it is argued that this civil dispute should be given a quietus and the proceedings of the case ought to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code"). In support of her contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the principles of law as laid down in the cases of Govind Prasad Kejriwal Vs. State of Bihar and another 2020 SCC Online SC 114, Commissioner of Police and others Vs. Devender Anand and others 2019 SCC Online SC 996 and of Chandran Ratnaswami Vs. K.C. Palanisamy & Others (2013) 6 SCC 740.

8. On the other hand, on behalf of learned State counsel, it is argued that it is a case, which bears an element of criminality; it is not a case of buyer and seller simpliciter; the petitioners induced the informant to deliver the money for purchase of the flats whereas, they had no approvals when they took money. It is

1. K.C. Palanisamy v. Chandran Ratnaswami, Writ Appeal No. 517 of 2013, order dated 22-3-2013 (Mad) argued that even today, the petitioner did not have any approvals from the concerned Haridwar and Roorkee Development Authority (H.R.D.A.). It is also argued that decision of RERA supports the case because RERA has decided civil aspect of the matter and criminal aspect may be seen in the instant case.

13. The facts somehow are admitted, the informant booked a flat through the petitioners. The possession was not given within the stipulated time. A complaint was made to RERA, which was decided on 18.05.2020.

14. On behalf of the petitioners, it is being argued that petitioners are paying the amount as directed by RERA. It is being argued that since, the matter has been decided by RERA, it should not proceed under criminal law.

15. The FIR, in the instant case makes two allegations primarily, one that at the initial stage the informant was assured of 12% return yearly, which was not made and second the possession was not given on time. The decision of RERA has been filed by the petitioner, which is annexure no.5. It also makes reference to assured return at the rate of 12%. It was mention in the brochure, which was published by the petitioners, so this part of assurance is definitely an inducement for anyone to invest with the project, which the petitioners were allegedly undertaking. But, did the petitioner had any intention to construct it on time. The judgment of RERA (annexure no.5) still records that the petitioners did not have due approvals, they did not have completion certificate.

16. On behalf of the petitioners, it is also argued that the petitioners tried to offer possession to the informant, but he did not accept the possession and insisted for money. This argument cannot be accepted because the RERA judgment says that the petitioners project did not have any completion certification. In the absence of any completion certification, how could one give possession to some allottee.

17. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that this case has an element of criminality. Initial stage the informant was assured 12% return, which was not paid. It definitely induced the informant to deliver Rs.16.75 lakh as booking amount of the flat. This promise was not kept by the petitioners. The petitioners did not have approvals despite that, they took money. The instant case is not purely civil in nature. The criminal prosecution has no affect due to judgment by RERA. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the petition and it deserves to be dismissed.