Rajesh S.Bajaj v. The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated:21.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Rajesh S.Bajaj, Male 58 years, S/o Srichand Bajaj Director, Bajaj Promoters Pvt. Ltd., No.71/72, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
.. Petitioner /versus/ 1.The Inspector of Police, Team-17(A), ALGSC-1, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.
2.C.Rammohan ..Respondents Prayer:
Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records relating to FIR No.117 of 2023 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Team-17(A), ALGSC-1, CCB, Chennai and quash the same.
1/6
For Petitioner :Mr.Sridhar for Mr.Prakash Goklaney For Respondents :Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)for R1 Mr.S.Saravanan for R2 -------
ORDER
Based on the complaint given by the buyer against the promoters, a case has been registered in Crime No.117 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 447 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The specific allegation found in the complaint is that apart from purchase of undivided share in the property, for a portion bearing Nos.4D and 4E in the fourth floor of the apartment, the petitioner has paid sale consideration and he is in possession since 31.10.2005. However, the promoters had created false document and sold it to the third party.
2/6
3.This Court, when the matter came up for admission found that a suit regarding declaration of title in respect of the undivided share been pending and suppressing the pendency of the civil suit, the complaint been given and same was taken up for investigation. Therefore, being prima facie satisfied, an exparte interim stay was granted.
4. After notice, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant entered appearance and he would submit that in the suit filed by the accused persons, a counter claim was made and decree has been passed only in respect of the undivided share in the land.
5. As far as the counter claim for cancellation of the sale deed was dismissed and the appeal is likely to be preferred. In any event, the respondent/complainant at the most can claim only right over the undivided share and not upon the superstructure constructed over the larger extent of the undivided share, without paying consideration for that. When that being the subject matter of the investigation, unless the 3/6
complainant produce proof for payment for the superstructure, the complaint cannot stand.
6. In the light of the material relied by the learned counsels, this Court is of the view that the matter, where two different contracts between the promoters and the buyer, one for the undivided share and another for construction, unless and until there is prima facie material to show that the person, who claims the possession and right over the superstructure has parted away the sale consideration for both particularly for the superstructure ipse facto there cannot be any right over the superstructure. Only if something else has done with criminal intention and mens rea, same requires investigation. Therefore, first the police shall decide about the merit of the complaint, whether any material available with the complainant to prove payment for the flat in dispute, if not, the complaint is to be closed as mistake of fact. 4/6
7. In fine, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. The respondent police is directed to complete the investigation within a period of four months and proceed in accordance with law. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 21.06.2024 Index:yes/no Speaking order/non speaking order ari To:
1.The Inspector of Police, Team-17(A), ALGSC-1, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
5/6
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
ari 21.06.2024 6/6