CRL.M.C./5125/2017 of ABRAR AHMED , ALIAS MOHD ABRAR Vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 5125/2017

ABRAR AHMED , ALIAS MOHD ABRAR..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.Mandeep Singh Vinalk, Adv. withMr.Deepak Bashta, Ms.VandiniDagar & Mr.Shaurya Sharma, Advs.Mr.Deepak Bashta, Ms.VandiniDagar & Mr.Shaurya Sharma, Advs.

versus

THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents

ThroughMr. Izhar Ahmad, APP for State.Mr.Sanjay Mishra, Adv. withMr.Nitesh Singla, Adv. for R-2.Mr.Sanjay Mishra, Adv. withMr.Nitesh Singla, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAITO R R%19.02.2020

The present petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seekingquashing of FIR No.603/2015 registered at Police Station Shahdara for theoffence punishable under section 420 IPC.

Case of the petitioner is that he had agreed to sell his property toRakesh Kumar Goel vide an agreement to sell dated 26.11.2012, in terms ofwhich Mr.Goel was required to purchase the property in question. However,Mr.Goel failed to complete the purchase transaction and failed to pay thebalance consideration in time. This led to the transaction being cancelledand the earnest money being forfeited by the petitioner.

Counsel for petitioner submits that said Rakesh Kumar Goel agreed tosell the same property to one Sangeeta Bansal and since he was unable to

complete the transaction, the said Sangeeta Bansal lodged complaint,which culminated into FIR in question.

Learned counsel further submits that Sangita Bansal, having allowedher alleged civil claim to become time barred, and having no privity ofcontract with the petitioner whatsoever, seeking to wrongfully convert herclaim of civil nature into criminal cause of action in the manner explainedinter alia. Her endeavour was to wrongfully pressurize the petitioner intocoughing up money received from Mr.Goel that he is entitled to forfeit. Thepetitioner became the victim of pre-planned conspiracy hatched by thecomplainant.

The complainant Sangita Bansal, in connivance with Anil KumarBansal, Umesh Gupta, Devendra Kaushik and Rakesh Kumar Goel, filed afalse and frivolous complaint against petitioner in PS Shahdara, Delhi, onthe basis of forged and fabricated agreement to sell dated 12.12.2012executed between Sangita Bansal and Rakesh Kumar Goel in order to extortmoney from petitioner in the garb of the above said false and frivolouscomplaint dated 03.01.2015 inspite of knowing fully well that petitioner isnowhere involved in any transaction between them.

It is further submitted that the petitioner had agreed to sell hisproperty to Rakesh Kumar Goel by means of an agreement to sell dated26.11.2012, in terms of which Mr.Goel was required to purchase theproperty in question.

The alleged transaction between Mr.Goel and complainant took placein the month of December, 2012 but the FIR was registered only on30.11.2015. Furthermore, the petitioner is sought to be harassed in themonth of May, 2017, belatedly, and with inordinate delay. The very fact

that the FIR is highly belated, itself casts serious suspicion. Furthermore,excessive delay in taking action on the said FIR leads to further suspicionregarding the true motivation behind the same.

It is not in dispute that petitioner entered into agreement to sell dated26.11.2012 with Rakesh Kumar Goel and said person thereafter entered intoan agreement dated 12.12.2012 with Sangita Bansal.

It is also not in dispute that in agreement dated 12.12.2012, thepetitioner is signatory as witness and in the said agreement, it is stated thatRakesh Kumar Goel is owner of the property in question, whereas, fact isthat petitioner was owner and till date he is owner of the property.

Case of the petitioner is that petitioner’s agreement was with RakeshKumar Goel who could not fulfil the terms of agreement, following whichhis earnest amount was forfeited. Thereafter, Rakesh Kumar Goel furtherentered into subsequent agreement dated 12.12.2012 with Sangita Bansalto sell the property. However, petitioner could not be made accused in thepresent FIR for the offence under section 420 IPC.

However, it is also not in dispute that Rakesh Kumar Goel cheatedSangita Bansal stating in the agreement dated 12.12.2012 that he is owner ofthe property. Also, fact remains that there was no occasion for petitioner tosign said agreement as witness when he was aware that Rakesh Kumar Goelwas not owner of the property.

Moreover, chargesheet is at the advanced stage and is yet to bepresented before the Trial Court,

In view of above, I find no ground to quash the present FIR

No.603/2015, the petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Needless to state that petitioner is at liberty to make his submissionbefore Trial Court at the time of passing of the order on charge.

FEBRUARY 19, 2020ab

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J