TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1685
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, was allowed and the First Information Report ("FIR") No. 94/2022 registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg, New Delhi ("subject FIR" or "FIR") for offences punishable under Section 467/468/471/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC"), was quashed against Vikramjit Singh and Maheep Singh (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3). 2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the learned Single Judge, Delhi High Court, was justified in quashing the subject FIR against Vikramjit Singh and Maheep Singh (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) and whether a cognizable offence against them is prima facie made out from a reading of the subject complaint? 3. The relevant facts of the present case are as under: 3.1. It is the case of the Appellant that a Receipt-cum-Agreement to Sell dated 12th April, 2004 ("Agreement to Sell") was executed by Bhai Manjit Singh, Vikramjit Singh (Respondent No. 2) and Maheep Singh (Respondent No. 3) (collectively referred to as "accused persons") in favour of the Appellant for sale of the property i.e. 28-A, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi admeasuring 3727 sq. yds. ("propert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rty. 3.3. On 24th June 2016, one Ashok Gupta lodged an FIR No. 105/2016 against the accused persons alleging therein that an Agreement to Sell dated 29th December 2010 for the subject property had been executed in his favour and that he was also put in possession of the servant quarter of the subject property. The said FIR was subsequently quashed by the Delhi High Court vide its Order dated 13th December 2019 in W.P. (Crl.) 465/2019 in view of the settlement between the parties. 3.4. Upon the alleged failure of the accused person to provide documents for clear title of the property, the Appellant published a notice dated 18th July 2020 in the Hindustan Times declaring to the public at large that an Agreement to Sell for the subject property had been executed between the Appellant and the accused persons. 3.5. In response to the said public notice, Punjab and Sind Bank, Rajendra Place, New Delhi issued an objection letter dated 20th July 2020 stating therein that the subject property had been mortgaged on 15th January 1996 by Bhai Manjit Singh for securing the loan granted to Montari Industries Limited. 3.6. Thereafter, SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited and SREI ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vide Order dated 7th February 2022. The said Order dated 7th February 2022 was challenged by the accused persons in FAO (OS) 20/2022, wherein the civil suit filed by the Appellant was stayed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court vide its Order dated 29th March 2022. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT 4. Ms. Mukta Gupta, learned senior counsel for the Appellant, stated that the learned Single Judge while allowing the quashing petition had erroneously laid great emphasis on the delay in registration of the FIR and the fact that the FIR was registered after the civil suit had been stayed by the Division Bench. 5. She contended that there was no delay in lodging the FIR. She stated that from 2004 to 2020, the accused persons kept representing that they were getting the subject property converted from leasehold to freehold, even though the property had already been converted to freehold. She stated that the accused persons denied the existence of the Agreement to Sell for the very first time through their letter dated 23rd July 2020. 6. She stated that the Appellant became aware of further sale of property on 8th December 2021 and thereafter obtained a copy of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was already mortgaged with Punjab and Sind Bank on 15th January 1996, was revealed for the very first time through the letter dated 20th July 2020 issued by Punjab and Sind Bank in response to the Appellant's public notice dated 18th July 2020 published in the Hindustan Times. 12. She stated that the misrepresentation, deception and dishonesty to induce the Appellant commenced from the date on which the receipt-cum-Agreement to Sell dated 12th April 2004 was executed and therefore, the element of deception had existed from the very inception of the transaction. She stated that the accused persons deceived the Appellant into parting with a sum of Rs. 1,64,50,000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty-Four Lacs Fifty Thousand) between 12th April 2004 and 3rd January 2005, which had been acknowledged by receipts, wherein Bhai Manjit Singh had signed as Karta and Vikramjit Singh and Maheep Singh (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) had signed as witnesses despite fully knowing that Bhai Manjit Singh was not the Karta of the HUF. 13. She stated that the deception continued even after the execution of the Receipt-cum-Agreement to Sell dated 12th April 2004 as Bhai Manjit Singh, Vikramjit Singh ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red by Bhai Manjit Singh against the Appellant, alleging for the first time that the receipts of payment in favour of the Appellant were forged and fabricated. She emphasized that such contradictory stands of all three accused persons are required to be investigated by the police authorities. 18. She stated that the Appellant was never handed over possession of any part of the subject property. According to her, the letter of possession dated 22nd April 2004 was only intended to give paper possession to the Appellant and not the actual physical possession. 19. She contended that institution of civil proceedings cannot act as a bar to the investigation of cognizable offences. She submitted that it is settled law that civil and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously. 20. She pointed out that the present case involves two cross-FIRs. On the one hand is the subject FIR dated 16th June 2022 registered by the Appellant against the accused persons, which has been quashed qua the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vide the impugned judgment. Whereas the other FIR dated 22nd August 2022 registered by Bhai Manjit Singh against the Appellant with respect to the same transaction is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver to the Appellant, there was no intention of deceiving the Appellant from the inception. He pointed out that even alleged possession letter dated 22nd April 2004 is signed only by Bhai Manjit Singh, ruling out any involvement of Vikramjit Singh and Maheep Singh (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3). ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 3 25. Learned senior counsel for Maheep Singh (Respondent No. 3) stated that Maheep Singh is a 73-year-old lady, who had signed on only two of the alleged receipts of payments made by the Appellant. He pointed out that Maheep Singh was not the Karta of the HUF at any point of time. He therefore stated that Maheep Singh (Respondent No. 3) cannot be treated at par with either Bhai Manjit Singh or Vikramjit Singh (Respondent No. 2). ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 1/STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 26. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, learned ASG appearing for the State (Respondent No. 1), stated that the FIR had been quashed at the nascent stage of investigation. She stated that Vikramjit Singh and Maheep Singh (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) had refused to furnish their specimen signatures and refused to comply with Section 91 Cr.P.C. n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Court must believe the averments and allegations in the complaint to be true and correct. It has been repeatedly held that save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court should not be used in a routine manner according to its whims or caprice. 30. In Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401, this Court has held as under:- "33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or "no coercive steps to be adopted" during the investigation or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173CrPC, while dismissing/dispo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....int/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure. 33.13. The power under Section 482CrPC is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court. 33.14. However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur and Bhajan Lal, has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint. 33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....understood and/or misapplied." AS PER THE COMPLAINT/FIR, RIGHT FROM THE INCEPTION, THERE WAS MISREPRESENTATION BY VIKRAMJIT SINGH AND MAHEEP SINGH 31. This Court is of the view that the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the complaint / FIR on its face did not disclose offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B IPC against Vikramjit Singh and Maheep Singh (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3), is factually incorrect. If the averments in the complaint are to be believed, which is the norm that is to be followed at this stage, then the subject FIR/complaint reveals commission of cognizable offences by (son and mother) Vikramjit Singh and Maheep Singh (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) also as they despite being aware that Bhai Manjit Singh (father of Vikramjit Singh and husband of Maheep Singh) had no authority to enter into an Agreement to Sell on behalf of the HUF (as he was not the Karta of HUF on the said date), allowed Bhai Manjit Singh to misrepresent with dishonest and fraudulent intent that he was the Karta of Bhai Manjit Singh HUF. This misrepresentation assumes serious connotation as at the relevant time i.e. 12th April 2004, the Karta of Bhai Manjit Singh HUF to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ingle Judge has failed to appreciate is that the Appellant had categorically alleged that the possession of the property is still with the accused persons, thereby rendering a mere paper possession. Further, the factum that the said possession was not treated seriously even by Vikramjit Singh and Maheep Singh (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) is apparent from the fact that when a similar Agreement to Sell was subsequently executed with Mr. Ashok Gupta, similar possession of the servant quarter was handed over to him also. Moreover, the fact that a Sale Deed was ultimately executed in favour of J.K. Paper Limited without reference to any such possession being handed over to Appellant shows that even the accused treated the said possession as a mere paper possession and a formality. 34. The learned Single Judge further failed to notice that admittedly Vikramjit Singh and Maheep Singh (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) continued to deal with the property after executing the Receipt-cum- Agreement to Sell by executing a registered mortgage, Agreement to Sell and Sale Deed. It is pertinent to mention that the mortgage with possession with SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited and an equitable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aspect to warrant any reference to precedents....." 38. Further, as per the allegations in the complaint/FIR during 2004-2020 the accused persons kept representing that they were in the process of getting the property unencumbered and converted to freehold. Upon the failure of the accused persons to show documents for clear title of the property, the Appellant had initially instituted a suit for specific performance, and it was only during the suit proceedings that it came to light that after the Agreement to Sell with the Appellant, the property was subsequently mortgaged to SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited and SREI Equipment Finance Limited and the same was subsequently sold to J.K. Paper Limited vide sale deed dated 02nd December 2021. The fact that Vikramjit Singh (Respondent No. 2) was the Karta of the Bhai Manjit Singh HUF at the relevant time was also allegedly revealed for the very first time through the aforesaid sale deed dated 02nd December 2021, certified copy of which was obtained by the Appellant on 28th December 2021. Consequently, the fact of misrepresentation and deception at the inception, that is, at the time of execution of the Receipt-cum-Agreement t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s well as the FIR dated 16th June 2022, were forged and fabricated. 43. Keeping in view the contradictory defences of the accused as well as the registration and pendency of the cross FIRs, this Court is of the view that the learned Single Judge should not have limited the scope of investigation. 44. In the context of cross cases, this Court in Nathi Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1990) SCC (Cri) 638 has held as under:- "2. We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present where there are cross cases, is to direct that the same learned Judge must try both the cross cases one after the other. After the recording of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter he must proceed to hear the cross case and after recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but reserve the judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Nor can the judge be influenced by whatever....