Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: parwanda in State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Sarita Parwanda on 20 September, 2019Matching Fragments
1 The revisionist has impugned the order dated 25.10.2016 passed by Ld. Trial Court vide which respondents have been discharged from the case in hand.
CR No. 24 of 2017 State vs. Sarita Parwanda & ors. 1/12 2 The revision has been filed on the grounds that respondent have sold property in question to the complainant and possession was also delivered. The respondents have no right, title or interest in the property in question to mortgage it with J & K Bank Limited. The property in question was again mortgaged by respondents with HDFC Bank and thereby they have also cheated HDFC Bank. Sh. Rajesh Bindra, close relative of respondent have colluded with the respondent in mortgaging the first floor of the property in question with HDFC Bank. The property in question was sold by the respondents to their daughter in order to procure loan from ICICI Bank but it was declined. The respondents have forcibly entered in the second floor of the property in question after breaking its lock. There can not be any roving inquiry at the stage of charge. Hence, this revision.
3. The revisionist has also filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that copy of the order was obtained only on 04.01.2017. The delay is due to processing and obtaining permission from the concerned officials for filing the revision. The delay is due to abovestated reason which is neither intentional nor deliberate.
4 Notice of the revision is given to the respondents. CR No. 24 of 2017 State vs. Sarita Parwanda & ors. 2/12 5 The facts of the case are like this. The complainant Sanjeev Malhotra gave a written complaint to the police with the allegation that respondents were owners of property bearing no. 139, Pocket 8, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi. There are four floors i.e. basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor. The respondents have sold second floor vide agreement dated 01.04.1994 and handed over its possession to him. They have also sold basement and ground floor vide sale agreement dated 01.07.1994 and handed over its vacant possession to him. The respondents have pledged the entire property in question to J & K Bank. The bank has filed a suit for recovery against them. The respondents have sold first floor of the property in question to Sh. Rajesh Binda vide sale deed dated 26.09.2007 when it was mortgaged with J & K Bank. Sh. Rajesh Bindra, in collusion with respondents, has mortgaged the first floor with HDFC Bank. The respondent have sold the second floor to their daughter Ms. Sonia Grover vide sale deed dated 16.02.2009 in order to take the loan. The loan was applied with ICICI bank but it was declined. The respondent have sold the entire property to Sh. Ashish Uppal, Sh. Manoj Kumar and Sh. Surender Kumar vide agreement to sell dated 25.10.2009. The respondents have CR No. 24 of 2017 State vs. Sarita Parwanda & ors. 3/12 broken the locks of the second floor which was in his possession and handed over it possession to Sh. Ashish Uppal, Sh. Manoj Kumar and Sh. Surender Kumar. All of them approached him to ascertain the true facts who filed the case against the respondents. The FIR was registered on the written complaint. Usual investigation was carried out. Charge sheet u/s 420/468/448/34 IPC was filed against them.
6 Ld. Trial Court after hearing Ld. APP for the State, Ld. Defence Counsel and perusing the record has discharged the respondent. 7 Ld. Addl. PP for the state submitted that respondents were the owners of the property in question who have entered into an agreement to sell dated 01.04.1994 and 01.07.1994 to sell basement, ground floor and second floor to the complainant and handed over the vacant possession to the complainant. He further submitted that the respondents have mortgaged the entire property with J & K Bank. He further submitted that the respondents have sold the first floor and second floor of the property to Sh. Rajesh Bindra and Ms. Sonia Grover in order to take the loan. He further submitted that respondents have sold the property to Ashish Uppal, Manoj Kumar and Surender Kumar. He further submitted that respondents had no right and title CR No. 24 of 2017 State vs. Sarita Parwanda & ors. 4/12 to either mortgage or to sell it once agreement to sell was entered with the complainant. He further submitted that the respondents have cheated the complainant and also created forged documents by executing sale deeds and agreement to sell.
9 Heard and perused the record.
10 Section 415 IPC says that whoever, by deceiving any person, CR No. 24 of 2017 State vs. Sarita Parwanda & ors. 5/12 fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property is set to cheat. The explanation would state that a dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.