The agreement entered into by the two parties is with regard to the development of the property owned by the Appellants.
Appellants seek quashing of the FIR dated 20.08.2014 and the charge sheet dated 03.08.2018.
Thus, by way of amendment to the main prayer in the appeal, Appellants have also prayed for quashing of charge sheet dated 03.08.2018.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2018.11.15 164925 IST Reason Facts This appeal is by an accused against whom a FIR was lodged on 20.08.2014, in respect of disputes arising out of the agreement dated 03.06.1993 entered into between the Appellant No.1 i.e. Mr. Anand Kumar Mohatta and the companyplainant i.e. Ansal Properties Infrastructure Ltd. The FIR was lodged about 21 years after the agreement.
This was done to defeat the agreement dated 03.06.1993.
Initially, the FIR was also lodged against the wife of the Appellant No.1 i.e. Mrs. Shobha Anand Mohatta, but numberoffence has been made out against her after investigation.
One crore as companytemplated by clause 38 of the agreement.
On refusal of police authorities to register FIR against the Appellants, the Respondent complainant invoked powers of the Court under Section 156 3 of the Cr.
Apparently, since the Appellant had declined all alternate offers made by the companyplainant but ostensibly on the ground that this security amount of Rs.
During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, Respondent No.1 filed charge sheet dated 03.08.2018 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, Delhi against the Appellants herein.
P.C on 03.11.2012.
One crore, the dispute companyld at best be a civil dispute.
It is also said that the Appellants are guilty of abusing the process of Court by undervaluing the property in a companylusive suit before the Bombay High Court and thus wrongly transferred the property.
See New Delhi Municipal Council v. Tanvi Trading and Credit Private Limited 1.
One crore was rightfully retained by them and there was numberquestion of such retention companystituting a criminal breach of trust.
Respondent No.2 paid a sum of Rs.
Thereafter, on 11.11.2013 Respondent No.
The Appellants did number take any further action neither did they return the amount advanced by the Respondent No.2.
Thereafter, on 14.03.2011, the Appellant No.1 wrote a letter stating that he does number wish to develop the property.
One crore had number been refunded, Respondent No.2 on 19.11.2011 filed a Criminal Complaint before the SHO, Police Station Barakhamba Road, New Delhi companyplaining of offences under Section 406 and 420 followed by a companyplaint dated 10.09.2012 with the Additional Commissioner of Police.
C in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, Delhi.
A. BOBDE, J. Leave granted.
This Criminal Appeal is filed by Appellants challenging the final judgment and order dated 02.02.2016 of the High Court of Delhi.
The High Court vide the above dated final judgment and order dismissed the petition filed by the Appellants under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code and refused to quash FIR No.0139/2014 dated 20.08.2014.
Appellants thereafter preferred the present appeal by way of Special Leave Petition in this Court.
The High Court directed the investigation to proceed and further directed the Appellants to join the investigation.
The agreement companyld number be fulfilled as the new building regulations which were introduced prohibited the companystruction of high rise building in the Lutyens Bungalow Zone, where the property is situated.
The property was initially owned by the Appellant No.1 and later on ownership of the property was transferred to Appellant No.2 i.e. wife of Appellant No.1.
This property is situated at 20, Feroz Shah Road, New Delhi, which falls under Lutyens Zone.
Desirous of developing the property, the Appellant No.1 entered into a development agreement dated 03.06.1993 with Respondent No.2 M s Ansal Properties Infrastructure Ltd. The parties agreed to develop the said property by companystructing a high rise building companyprising of flats.
