TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1879
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shailender Babbar & Ms. Manisha Parwan, Advocates for respondents No.2 & 3, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State with Inspector Umesh Sharma Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vijay Aggarwal & Mr. Rohit P.Ranjan, Advocates for respondent No.2 ORDER The above captioned first petition is directed against trial court's order of 15th November, 2016 vide which cognizance for the offence of cheating has been taken against petitioner- Meera Goel, whereas in the above captioned second petition, complainant-Priti Saraf is aggrieved by Revisional Court's order of 26th April, 2017, vide which trial court's order of 15th November, 2016 qua Ashok Kumar has been set asid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey, for which no criminal prosecution can be launched. Learned senior counsel for petitioner- Meera Goyal pointed out that apart from the earnest money, she had received part of sale consideration of Rs.5.40 crores, which after termination of Agreement to Sell of 24th December, 2011 was returned to complainant-Priti Saraf and in terms of Article-5 of Agreement to Sell, petitioner- Meera Goyal was justified in forfeiting the earnest money. It was pointed out complainant had failed to provide the drawings within the timeline provided in Agreement to Sell and later on, it was provided and thereafter land of complainant was demarcated by erecting pillars, as it was known to both the sides that subject property could not be sub-divided. Impug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is also pointed out by learned senior counsel for petitioner- Meera Goyal that the parties have invoked arbitration clause in the Agreement to Sell and arbitration is pending and since the ingredients of offence alleged are lacking, therefore, criminal proceedings against petitioner ought to be brought to an end. So far as dropping of criminal proceedings against respondent-Ashok Kumar is concerned, learned counsel for complainant-Priti Saraf submitted that merely because accused-Ashok Kumar had refunded amount of Rs.50,00,000/- to complainant-Priti Saraf , would not justify dropping of criminal proceedings against Ashok Kumar, because prima facie case of cheating is made out against him. Reliance is placed upon Supreme Court's deci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, it was presented for encashment. It was pointed out that Meera Goyal had settled dues of the bank and had got 'No Objection Certificate' and had obtained sanction of building plan with ill intent to reconstruct the subject property. It was further submitted that no sub-division of subject property was permissible but Meera Goyal had falsely represented that the property in question was sub-divided. It was further pointed out by learned senior counsel for Priti Saraf and Rohit Saraf that Meera Goyal was required to get the demarcation of the subject property done by erecting pillars but it could not be done due to existing structure in the subject property. It was submitted that the lease of subject property to third party i.e. M/S M.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as received by petitioner-Meera Goyal in terms of Agreement to Sell in question and there is no basis to conclude that the earnest money received by her was used in clearing her bank dues of Rupees Eighteen Crores (Rs.18,00,00,000/-). Notice to perform Agreement to Sell and subsequent Termination Notice of 30th January, 2013, was duly served by petitioner- Meera Goyal on 30th January, 2013 upon complainant-Priti Saraf. It is so evident from complainant's reply of 26th February, 2013 which was sent to petitioner's Notice terminating Agreement to Sell of 24th December, 2011. Pertinently, as per complainant's reply, deadline of 24th March, 2012 stood novated. Petitioner- Meera Goyal, had obtained sanctioned plan for the property in question fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spute between the parties but would certainly like to clarify in unequivocal terms that the element of cheating alleged is lacking in the instant case. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that criminal proceedings against Meera Goyal and Ashok Kumar ought to be dropped, as ingredients of offence of cheating are lacking in the instant case. It prima facie appears that Complainant- Priti Saraf's failure to perform Agreement to Sell cannot be justified because lease of subject property ended before initiation of criminal proceedings. Upon testing the instant case on the parameters reiterated by Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir (Supra), I find that it is a futile attempt to inject criminality into a purely civil dispute, resultin....