Delhi High Court rejects second revision bid in property cheating case, cites bar on ‘backdoor entry’

Background

• A property developer, the complainant, alleged that the petitioner laong with other co-accised induced him to make a part payment of Rs 30 lakh for purchasing and developing a property in Shivalik.
• The petitioner and other accused allegedly represented to the complainant that they had the authority to sell the property by virtue of the power of attorney.
• However, it was later found that the original allottee of the property had passed away, making the power of attorney invalid and inoperative.

• The property in question was neither transferred nor was the part payment of Rs 30 lakh returned to the complainant.
• It was placed on record that the complainant subsequently discovered that the property had been sold to third parties, following which criminal proceedings were initiated alleging cheating and conspiracy.

Findings

• After examining the material on record, the trial court found that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner to proceed with the trial, and therefore, there was no valid reason to interfere with the order.
• The said amount of Rs 30 lakh, which was received by the petitioner, was neither refunded to the complainant nor a forfeiture notice issued.
• It could have been a case of “gross injustice” if the petitioner returned the said amount to the complainant, then it would have justified the interference of the court based on inherent powers.
• The petitioners and co-accused had actually sold the subject property to another person, who further sold it to another person.
• It is not a fit case to allow a backdoor entry to a second revision petition filed by the petitioner.
• The petitioner is fined Rs 15,000, which is to be deposited online with http://www.bharatkeveer.gov.in,, a platform supporting families of martyred central armed police forces personnel, within one week.

Arguments

• The petitioner’s counsel, advocate Amit Alok, argued that the alleged amount of Rs 30 lakh was paid to the co-accused and not to his client, and that the petitioner had only signed the receipts at the request of the co-accused due to ill health.

• However, it was admitted that the petitioner signed the receipts for the said amount.
• Alok further submitted that the said amount of Rs 30 lakh was forfeited because the complainant did not pay the balance amount in time.