TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 584
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heque No. 538630 of Rs. 50,00,000/- dated 21.08.2008 drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank. On the averments that Accused / Petitioner, Dimpy Nangia had entered into an Agreement to Sell in respect of builder property bearing No. N-25 and N-26, Village Rajpur Khurd, Hargobind Enclave, Near Chhattarpur, New Delhi. 3. On 30.05.2008, the Petitioner had received a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- via Pay Order from the Complainant as earnest money. Receipt of the same was duly prepared and signed by the Petitioner. Rs. 5,00,000/- had also been received by the Petitioner in cash on 30.10.2008 against the sale consideration, which was duly acknowledged by her. However, she did not come forward to execute the documents in favour of the Complainant. Legal Notice dated 26.07.2010 was issued by the Complainant for execution of sale documents, but there was no response from the Petitioner. Subsequently, corrigendum Notice was issued in 06.05.2010 for correcting the name of the Complainant, which had been inadvertently mentioned incorrect. 4. At last, Petitioner entered into a Mutual Settlement / Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") dated 21.08.2010 with the Complainant, wherein she agreed to settle the matt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) and one Jagjit Singh (brother-in-law / sala of Harjinder Pal Singh) in connivance duped, robbed, cheated and swindled innocent persons, who were in need of money and exploited their situation by taking from them and their family members documents like blank signed cheques; blank signed stamp papers of various denomination; registered power of attorneys with respect to the immovable properties and some blank signed papers duly at the bottom by way of security against lending them various amounts. 9. Petitioner, her husband and her family members have been similarly cheated and their properties have been usurped by the Complainant along with his brother Harjinder Pal Singh and other accomplices, by making them sign and affix thumb impressions on blank cheques, stamp papers, power of attorneys and blank papers. Those blank cheques and stamp papers have been misused and converted by the Complainant in his favour for unjust enrichment and gains. 10. In 2012, it was found that Respondent along with his brother-in-law, Jagjit Singh and H.S. Mehta, had not only converted the blank signed papers and stamp papers into the Agreement to Sell dated 30.05.2008, Special Power of Attorney,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e documents has sold the property worth more than Rs.5 crore belonging to the husband and family members of the Petitioner. Complainant is one of the beneficiary of this illegal sale of the property, for which money has been pocketed and shared amongst four accused persons namely Harjinder Pal Singh, Ravinder Pal Singh, H.S. Mehta and Jagjit Singh, as mentioned in FIR No.0236/2013. 16. Complainant's claim that alleged amount of Rs. 50 lakh had been given to her by way of impugned cheque is incorrect, as the cheque has been found to be forged and fabricated by CFSL and Fingerprint Bureau. The alleged agreement showing repayment/ compromise has also been found to be forged and fabricated. The Accused claimed that she does not owe even a single penny to the Complainant; rather the bank account of Complainant's brother has been frozen by EOW, Delhi in FIR No.0236/2013. Entire documents including impugned cheque and Agreement etc., including the documents, on the Complainant has relied in the Complaint under Section 138 NI Act, have been impounded and seized by EOW, Delhi Police. 17. Present Complaint was just a counter-blast in an exercise to summon, harass and drag the Petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nly remedy for the accused to seek discharge is to file a Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that in FIR No.0831/2014 under Sections 420/120B IPC, registered at P.S.: Hari Nagar, Delhi, a Cancellation Report has already been submitted. Complaint under Section 138 NI Act, on identical facts, cannot be allowed to be continued, as a weapon of harassment. 23. Reliance has been placed on Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Judicial Magistrate, AIR 1998 SC 128. 24. The Petitioner has sought the quashing of this Criminal Complaint under Section 138 NI Act on the ground that the narration of facts in the Complaint under Section 138 NI Act and the documents on the face of it, neither inspire confidence with respect to their veracity nor is it believable in the normal course of human conduct of business. If the Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.2005 claims that the Petitioner has given possession and original documents to the Respondent to bring alleged buyer, but on realising that he would not able to prove his possession after 30.05.2008 and also would not be able to prove custody of the original title document of the subject property. He as an afterthought gave a Legal Notice d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments and it has been found that the Petitioner has no liability. Once this issue has already been dealt in FIR No. 0831/2014, there is no question of further proceeding in the Complaint under Section 138 NI Act. Valid credit has to be given to the Cancellation Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. filed by the Police in regard to the alleged transaction Complaint by Respondent No. 2/Complainant herein. 30. In the case of M/s IKF Technologies Limited (supra), it has been observed that in an appropriate case if on the face of the documents which are being on suspicion or doubt which are placed by Accused then the accusations against him cannot stand. It would be travesty of justice if Accused is relegated to trial and is asked to prove his defence before the learned Trial Court. 31. It is stated that the findings of the learned Trial Court that the Petitioner has taken a loan of Rs.63,70,000/- from the brother of the Complainant against which he had issued the cheque in question is factually incorrect. The jurisdictional error has been committed in not appreciating the Cancellation Report filed by the Police in FIR No.0831/2014. 32. It has not been appreciated that the story put....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra Nagia and were duly notarized. Initially a payment of Rs.25 lakhs was received by the Petitioner from Respondent No. 2 including a Pay Order of Rs.7.40 lakhs, which was encashed in her account, but she sold the property to some other person only for Rs.7 lakhs, and the copy of Agreement for Rs.7 lakhs, was filed on record. 37. It is claimed that there is no adverse Report for MOU received from FSL and Finger Print Bureau, despite these documents having been sent for analysis. The Respondent No. 2 also got the Report from Truth Lab, Delhi which proved the MOU as genuine. A Closure Report has been filed in FIR No. 0831/2014 lodged by the Complainant against the Petitioner and her husband. The Respondent No. 2 has already filed a Protest Petition against the Closure Report, before the Court of ACMM which pending adjudication. 38. The Police has not recommended initiation of proceedings in the Complaint Case of the Respondent No. 2, under Section 138 NI Act. The Petitioner has subsequently moved an Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against Respondent No. 2 in his FIR No. 831/2014 in which the Closure Report has already been filed, Therefore, the Application under Section 3....