About a year later, the appellants mother received a letter from the respondent denying the agreement and the draft of Rs.50,000 was also returned along with the letter.
of IPC in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi alleging that she was duped and a fabricated forged agreement has been set up in the suit, a photocopy of which was filed.
However, the original agreement has number been filed in the Court till number.
On 8.7.1991, the respondent filed a photocopy of the alleged agreement dated 30.7.1981 according to which the flat was agreed to be sold to Sukhbinder Singh.
On recording the statement of the companyplainant on 8.3.2001, it appears that the learned Magistrate took companynizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused as well as to Sukhbinder Singh.
606 in the multistoried companyplex proposed to be companystructed at Prabha Devi, Mumbai by the said firm, pursuant to which she paid earnest money initially and later on after the companystruction of the building companymenced in 1987, she tendered a sum of Rs.50,000 through a demand draft on 28.1.1987.
By the impugned order, the said application came to be allowed by the High Court on the ground of delay in preferring the companyplaint.
After exchange of numberices, appellants mother filed a suit being suit No.
In the meanwhile, the appellants mother i.e. the companyplainant died in May, 2001 and the appellant has been substituted as companyplainant in the case.
The respondent firm filed a written statement on 19.5.1989 setting up the plea that the flat in question was sold to one Sukhbinder Singh by an agreement of sale dated 30.7.1981.
82 of 1989 in the High Court of Delhi seeking the relief of specific performance.
P.C. and the other regarding limitation.
It is alleged that the appellants mother, on getting certain information from the alleged purchaser, filed a private companyplaint under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 474 etc.
P.C. in the High Court of Delhi for quashing the criminal companyplaint.
NO.5540 OF 2002 VENKATARAMA REDDI, J. Leave granted.
ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION Crl.
As regards the bar under Section 195 Cr.
It appears that two questions were raised before the High Courtone is about the bar under Section 195 Cr.
In May, 2002 a petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.
It is the case of the appellant that his mother who is numbermore entered in to a written agreement on 13.10.1981 with the first respondent firm for the purchase of flat No.
It is against this order the SLP has been preferred by the companyplainant.
