Full Text
Translation output
$-66 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 2648/2011
NIKKIJOHRI Petitioner
Through Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Adv.
CRL.M.C. 2648/2011
NIKKIJOHRI Petitioner
Through Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Adv.
VERSUS
STATE &ORS. Respondent
Through Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State.
Mr. Viswa Nath Gautam, Complainant in person.
Through Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State.
Mr. Viswa Nath Gautam, Complainant in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER o/o 11.08.2011 CrLM.A. 9459/2011 Exemption allowed subject tojust exception.
ORDER o/o 11.08.2011 CrLM.A. 9459/2011 Exemption allowed subject tojust exception.
CRL.M.C. 2648/2011
By this petition the Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 55/2010 under
Section 420/406 IPC registered at P.S. North Rohini on the complaint of one Mr. Vishwa Nath Gautam.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has settled the matter with thecomplainant and thecomplainant has already received thepayment which fact he has admitted in a criminalproceedingpending at Faridabad Court.
CRL.M.C. 2648/2011 page 1 of2
\ 2011:DHC:9024 i •'
Learned APP for the State says that besides the complainant who has got the FIR registered, there are other victims whose statements have also been recorded during investigation. The Petitioner has cheated a large number of people. Even the complainant who is present in person in Court today states that hehas not received the money back and no settlement has been arrived at between the parties.
I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. A perusal of the FIR shows that it involves sale of plots allotted by the Delhi Government in Village
Asolla near Mehrauli under the scheme of 20-Point Program to the poor persons.
The Petitioner who is running a construction company allegedly cheated the complainant besides others by selling such plots. The consideration taken from the complainant is Rs. 4,50,000/- which he now states that he has returned to the complainant, which fact isrefuted bythecomplainant.
Even if the complainant has received the entire payment back, in view of the fact that the offence involves sale of plots allotted by the Delhi Government under the scheme of 20-Point Program allotted to the poor persons which could not have been re-sold, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR.
Petition is dismissed.
'ga' MUKTA GUPTA,J AUGUST 11, 2011
By this petition the Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 55/2010 under
Section 420/406 IPC registered at P.S. North Rohini on the complaint of one Mr. Vishwa Nath Gautam.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has settled the matter with thecomplainant and thecomplainant has already received thepayment which fact he has admitted in a criminalproceedingpending at Faridabad Court.
CRL.M.C. 2648/2011 page 1 of2
\ 2011:DHC:9024 i •'
Learned APP for the State says that besides the complainant who has got the FIR registered, there are other victims whose statements have also been recorded during investigation. The Petitioner has cheated a large number of people. Even the complainant who is present in person in Court today states that hehas not received the money back and no settlement has been arrived at between the parties.
I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. A perusal of the FIR shows that it involves sale of plots allotted by the Delhi Government in Village
Asolla near Mehrauli under the scheme of 20-Point Program to the poor persons.
The Petitioner who is running a construction company allegedly cheated the complainant besides others by selling such plots. The consideration taken from the complainant is Rs. 4,50,000/- which he now states that he has returned to the complainant, which fact isrefuted bythecomplainant.
Even if the complainant has received the entire payment back, in view of the fact that the offence involves sale of plots allotted by the Delhi Government under the scheme of 20-Point Program allotted to the poor persons which could not have been re-sold, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR.
Petition is dismissed.
'ga' MUKTA GUPTA,J AUGUST 11, 2011
CRLM.C. 2648/2011 pag^ 2 of2
2011:DHC:9024
2011:DHC:9024
JUDGMENT