W.P.(CRL)--1790/2017. Case: PRADEEP AGARWAL Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY: GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(CRL)--1790/2017 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | December 04, 2018 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 27th August, 2018
Decided on: 4th December, + W.P.(CRL) 1790/2017 and Crl.M.A. No. 9902/2017
PRADEEP AGARWAL ... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Manoj Kr.Ohri, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Rohit Priya Ranjan, Mr.Gaurav Chauhan and Ms.Shweta Sharma, Advocates.
versus
STATE REPRESENTED BY: GOVT OF NCT
OF DELHI & ORS ... Respondents
Represented by: Ms.Kamna Vohra, ASC for the State with Insp.Ishwar Singh, Crime Branch, R.K.Puram.
Mr.S.S.Gandhi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.M.Bhaskar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. By this petition the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR under Sections 420/34 IPC registered at PS Crime Branch and proceedings emanating therefrom. The above noted FIR was registered the complaint of Ms.Seema Narayen, received at SER/Crime Branch. complainant reported that she has been defrauded to the tune of ₹2.80 crores by a deep-rooted conspiracy perpetrated by Pradeep Agarwal (the herein) and his brother Praveen Agarwal. The complainant stated that petitioner approached her in December 2009 and lured her to independent floor in a three-storied residential project about constructed by them on a plot area of 504 sq. yards bearing No.X-19,
W.P.(CRL) 1790/2017 Page 1
Khas, New Delhi. The petitioner drew a rosy picture of the project guaranteed that possession would be given in 24 months as the Plan was already sanctioned by MCD in the year 2008 and casually the sanctioned plan and a string of papers claiming that the plot was from encumbrances and cajoled her to invest in the project.
2. In the same month, the petitioner repeatedly pressed her to his project claiming that he was giving her a concessional price of crores for the ground floor with the concession to pay in instalments her convenience. Relying on his representation and assurances, complainant agreed to buy ground floor in their project at X-19, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. On 13th January, 2010, the petitioner brought an Agreement Sell in respect of the ground floor of the above property and got of the complainant in the presence of witnesses. The complainant made a part payment of ₹21 lakh through cheques on 13th January, 2010.
3. However, no construction commenced at the site for two years. persistent inquiries by the complainant, the petitioner started and in March, 2013, when the basic structure was ready the petitioner started demanding the remaining amount of ₹2.59 crores, which was also the complainant through cheques. During that period, the complainant also asking the petitioner to provide her the papers and the Agreement Sell, which he had got signed on 13th January, 2010 but he only provided her the confirmation of the payment received by him and did not provide agreement to sell document on the pretext that those were with his brother at Kolkata.
4. The complainant later came to know that the property was, in under mortgage with the State Bank of India, Kolkata. On questioning him,
W.P.(CRL) 1790/2017 Page 2
the petitioner neither gave any satisfactory answer nor provided the the Agreement to Sell to the complainant. When she demanded back money, the petitioner assured her that he would get everything sorted before...
To continue reading
Request your trial