Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. On behalf of second respondent-complainant, learned senior counsel had relied upon decisions in Acharya Arun Dev v. State & Anr. 2005 [2] JCC 897; M/s. Hira Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Sidharth Sareen & Ors. in I.A. No.1/04/2008 in CS (OS) 260/2008 rendered on 27th February, 2008 & Sidharth Sareen & Anr. v. M/s. Hira Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., FAO (OS) 93/2009 rendered on 23rd March, 2010 to contend that prima facie case for police investigation on the version of second respondent is made out and since commission of cognizable offences by petitioner in respondent's complaint is disclosed, therefore, registration of FIR on second respondent's complaint giving different version of the same transaction is permissible in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Shiv Shankar (supra) and for independent and transparent investigation and to find out the truth, police investigation is essential as there are specific allegations of petitioner fraudulently and dishonestly using forged documents to criminally misappropriate advance payment of `26,92,21,428/- (Rupees twenty six crores, ninety two lakhs, twenty one thousand and four hundred and twenty eight.) .