N G Dev vs State & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
% Reserved on: 03 February, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 20 April, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 1236/2017
N.G. DEV
S/o Late Sh. J.N. Dev
R/o A-69, Nirman Vihar,
Delhi-110092,
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocate.
Versus
1. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
2. SANJAY GARG
S/o Late Ratan Lal Garg
R/o Plot No.37, Ground Floor,
Defence Enclave, Vikas Marg,
Delhi.
Also at:
Plot No.G-93,
Preet Vihar,
Delhi-110092.
3. GURCHARAN SINGH @ RAJU
S/o Late Sh. Sardar Sarv Singh
R/o G-256, Preet Vihar,
Delhi-110092.
Also at:
1975, Zeenat Mahal, Lal Kuan
Near Taqat Shafakhana,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1236/2017 Page 1 of 13
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
16:21:11
Delhi.
4. RINKU
R/o G-256, Preet Vihar,
Delhi-110092.
Also at:
1975, Zeenat Mahal, Lal Kuan,
Near Taqat Shafakhana,
Delhi.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State.
Mr. M.N. Dudeja, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. A Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227
Constitution of India has been filed to challenge the Order of learned ASJ
dated 04.02.2017, whereby the Order dated 14.10.2015 of the learned
CMM, dismissing the Complaint of the Petitioner, under Sections
406/420/120B/34 IPC , has been upheld.
2. The facts in brief , are that a Complaint Case No.33/12 titled ‘N.G.
Dev vs. Gurucharan Singh etc. ’ was filed by the Complainant /Revisionist
under Section 406/420/120B/34 IPC. The Petitioner N.G. Dev alleged that
Respondent No.2, Sanjay Garg had approached him for purchase of property
No.A-14, Swasthya Vihar, Delhi in or around April, 2008 to August, 2008.
He represented that the property was available at a good price and the prices
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1236/2017 Page 2 of 13
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
16:21:11
were likely to escalate later, due to the Commonwealth Games and would
give good profit. The Respondents visited his residence in the last week of
August, 2008 and induced him to purchase the property for a sale
consideration of Rs.6 Crores.
3. Though, the Petitioner insisted on execution of an MOU, but the
Respondents cleverly avoided the execution of the same. The Respondents
told him that the cash component of Rs.4.39 Crores would have to be paid
first and at the time of execution of the Sale Deed, the balance amount
would be paid through cheque. The Petitioner claimed that he approached
various Banks and Financial Institutions for availing the loan. He made
payment of Rs.4.39 Crores as follows:
(i) Rs. 70 Lakhs in cash on 17.11.2008 to Gurucharan
Singh/Respondent No.l;
(ii)Rs. 50 Lakhs in cash on 01.12.2008 to Rinku/Respondent
No.3;
(iii)Rs. 90 Lakhs in cash on 08.12.2008 to all Respondents;
(iv)Rs. 1 Crore in cash on 10.12.2008 to all Respondents;
(v)Rs. 1.05 Crores in cash on 13.01.2009 to all Respondents;
and
(vi)Rs. 24 Lakhs in cash on 15.01.2009 to all Respondents.
4. The money was appropriated by the Respondents and they committed
criminal breach of trust. Moreover, in furtherance of common intention and
in conspiracy with each other, they cheated the Petitioner. Thus, the
Complaint Case was filed under S.406/420/120B/34 IPC.
5. An Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was filed by the
Petitioner along with his Complaint, but it was dismissed, by observing that
there was no need for any investigations by the Police.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1236/2017 Page 3 of 13
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
16:21:11
6. The pre-summoning evidence was led wherein the Petitioner
examined eight witnesses, including himself.
7. The Learned CMM vide Order dated 14.10.2015 dismissed the
Complaint, by observing that the Petitioner had failed to prove that he had
arranged such huge amount Rs.4.39 Crores and had made the payment to the
Respondent. The Petitioner had also failed to prove any connection with
various Companies whose documents the Petitioner had relied upon, to
show the arrangement of money.
8. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Complaint, the Petitioner preferred
Crl. Revision No.43841/2015 , before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.
9. The learned ASJ observed that there was no Agreement to Sell
executed between the parties in the Complaint and in Ex.CW1/16, Plot
Number was mentioned as 814, when in evidence the Plot Number has been
given as P-14. Moreover, it was beyond any logic how more than Rs.4
Crores would be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondents, merely on the
basis of assurance, without verification of the documents of property which
he intended to purchase. The Petitioner in fact, wanted to cheat the
Government of the Revenue by making payment in cash. The presence of
CW2 Ravinder Biswas has not been mentioned anywhere in the Complaint
or Ex.CW1/16. The loan documents reflect that Petitioner had approached
for some of the loans in July, 2008, whereas allegedly the inducement was
given in August, 2008 which reflects that the loan was arranged even before
the things were finalized. The explanation of the Petitioner regarding two
consumer loans, were somewhat incredible. The Receipts Ex.CW1/9 to 14
did not show the name of the Complainant. The other Receipts did not show
that the amount shown to have been received in regard to the purchase of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1236/2017 Page 4 of 13
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
16:21:11
property in question. Moreover, the Petitioner kept quiet for more than two
years and gave a Complaint to DCP, EOW Ex.CW1/16, only on 04.05.2011.
10. The Petitioner moved an Application under Section 399 Cr.P.C. read
with Section 391 Cr.P.C before learned ASJ, to file the copy of an Affidavit
of Respondent No.1 filed before Returning Officer for Elections of MCD,
2012. Through this document, Petitioner wanted to show that Respondent
No.1 was a man of no virtue. Some contradictions in the said Affidavit were
also pointed out. He also filed copies of some Sale Deeds to show that
Respondents were not strangers to him as one or the other Respondent was a
witness to those Sale Deed. He also pointed to convey that there was
nothing unnatural on his part to have made payments in cash to the
Respondents without execution of documents because there was trust
between them. The Application of the Petitioner in the facts and
circumstances, was allowed. The Petitioner also relied upon the Status
Report dated 18.04.2012 submitted by EoW according to which Respondent
No.1 and 3 had admitted having received some money through the Receipts.
The learned ASJ observed that this was of no consequence; firstly , because
they were only on plain paper; secondly, there were various cuttings and
interpolations; thirdly the owner of the property stated that the
Petitioner/Respondent No.1 were not involved in the deal; and lastly, the
Status Report cannot be considered as proof of payments.
11. The learned ASJ further observed that the payment of such huge
amount in cash, was not understandable. As per the version of the
Petitioner, he had arranged money though loan from various Bank and
Financial Institutions and loans were taken by Companies in which
Petitioner was one of the Director. The Petitioner could have and should
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1236/2017 Page 5 of 13
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
16:21:11
have made payments through Cheque or through Banks. The fact that the
money is claimed to have been paid in cash, shows only one thing that it
was black money and nothing else. The Court cannot entertain claims
regarding black money. It was also noted that the person whose property
Petitioner wanted to purchase, was nowhere in the picture. The transaction
was undertaken with the Respondents through nothing to do with the
property. It was incomprehensible that the Petitioner did not meet the real
owner even once, before entering into the deal. The Petitioner himself
claims to be a realtor and had vast experience in property dealings . It was
concluded that the claim of the Petitioner was full of inherent infirmities and
improbabilities of which the Notice had been taken rightly by the learned
CMM. It was held that there was no merit in the Revision Petition and the
same was dismissed.
12. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present Petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C., has been filed to challenge the Order dated 04.02.2017 of learned
ASJ.
13. The grounds of challenge are that the material furnished by the
Petitioner against the Respondents, has been overlooked. His testimony as a
witness, has also not been discussed and completely ignored. The learned
Trial Court has glanced over the statements of the Petitioner and his
Manager examined as CW1 and CW2 respectively, during the pre-
summoning evidence. The statements of CW1 and CW2 undoubtedly
disclosed that the Respondents had approached the petitioner in the month
of April, 2008 to purchase the property for a consideration of Rs.6 Crores.
The Petitioner was being continuously induced by misrepresentations of the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1236/2017 Page 6 of 13
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
16:21:11
Respondents, to purchase the property by claiming it to be a fair deal which
would later fetch good profit.
14. The learned ASJ and learned CMM have erroneously observed that
the Petitioner had not bothered to verify the property in question and also its
relevant documents. The Petitioner claimed that he himself had visited the
property along with the Manager and Respondents, a fact clearly stated by
him as CW2 and by his Manager Ravinder Biswas as CW2. This relevant
evidence has been overlooked.
15. While learned ASJ observed that it was beyond logic that more than
Rs.4 Crores would be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondents, merely on
the basis of the assurance, it has been overlooked that the Petitioner had
deep trust in Respondent No.2 and 3 with whom he had been doing business
for a period of more than four years which was evident from the documents
placed by the Petitioner in the Revision Petition. The Respondent No.2 had
stood as a witness in many of the Sale-Purchase Agreements executed by
the Petitioner, reflecting the closeness and affinity with the Respondents.
16. Furthermore, the evidence furnished by the Petitioner has been
brushed aside as inadmissible and the probative value of documentary
evidence has been entirely ignored. The documents had been duly proved
by the Petitioner, in his pre-summoning evidence.
17. It is further asserted that the Receipts had no cuttings or interpolations
on the Receipts, as has been erroneously held by the learned ASJ. The
rejection of material evidence, shows that there was no proper application of
mind.
18. The observations of the learned Trial Court that the Petitioner
intended to cheat Government of Revenue by paying huge amounts in cash,
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1236/2017 Page 7 of 13
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
16:21:11
itself reflects that the money had indeed been paid by the Petitioner to the
Respondent. Even if it is assumed without admitting that Petitioner intended
to cheat the Government, mere assumption does not exempt or exonerate the
Respondent from their liability to return the hard earned money of the
Petitioner, which is still in their possession.
19. There was clear offence of cheating made out from the evidence on
record, as the Respondent had induced the Petitioner to approach various
Bank and Financial Institutions to avail the loan. It is significant to note that
the Respondents were not even authorized by the seller, Naresh Bansal to
sell the property. The connivance of Respondent No.2 and 3 and their
intention to cheat and defraud the Petitioner, is evident from the very
beginning. The judgments of the Supreme Court on the aspect of cheating,
have been overlooked.
20. Hence, a prayer was made that the impugned Order be quashed.
21. The Respondent No.3 and 4 Gurcharan Singh and Rinku in their
Reply , have asserted that the present Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is
not maintainable since it in the nature of second Revision, as the first
Revision had already been dismissed by the learned ASJ. The facts have
been considered by both the Court of learned CMM and learned ASJ and
have concurrently held that the material in the present Complaint, are wholly
inadequate and insufficient to proceed further in the case. The details,
reasons and material has been considered by both the Courts, to observe that
the Complaint was not supported by the evidence of the witnesses and the
documents and did not warrant summoning of the Accused.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1236/2017 Page 8 of 13
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
16:21:11
22. The Revisional Court has arrived at a complete satisfaction of the
correctness, legality and the propriety of the Order of the learned CMM,
which cannot be again reconsidered in exercise of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
23. It is further submitted that the Revisional Court has considered the
claim of the Petitioner of having given Rs.4 Crores in cash without signing
of the documents of the property which was intended to be purchased, and
held it to be unbelievable. There is no Agreement to Sell or MOU signed in
relation to sale of property.
24. The owner of the subject property was not a party to the discussions
held between the Petitioner and the Respondents and has also not been made
a witness in the Complaint. The handing over of Rs.4 Crores in cash without
examining the chain of documents of the property is highly improbable.
25. The loans were purportedly arranged from financial Institutions by
the Petitioner being the Director of the Firm and not in his individual
capacity. The money taken by the Company could not have been legally
applied in the manner suggested by the Petitioner, in his individual capacity.
26. The so called Receipts annexed with the Complaint, had no stamps.
The money Receipts if at all taken into consideration do not speak about the
deal of the property; rather these documents speak about the interpolations
that had been made in the Receipts.
27. EoW Cell, Delhi Police had thoroughly examined the money
transaction, title, loan and other documents and found that no case was made
out under the IPC.
28. The material facts have been concealed from the Court below that he
had arranged same amount of loan from same Financial Institution, for
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1236/2017 Page 9 of 13
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
16:21:11
another property i.e N-20, Gagan Vihar, Delhi-110092 for which Notice has
already been issued.
29. The Respondent relied upon the case of Pepsi Foods vs. Special
Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749, wherein it was observed that the
Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary
evidence before summoning of the Accused, and may even himself put
questions to elicit the answers, to find out the truthfulness of the allegations
or otherwise, to satisfy if prima facie the offence is committed by one or all
Accused. It was thus, submitted that there is no merit in the present Petition
which is liable to be dismissed.
30. The Respondent No.2 Sanjay Garg in his Reply had also taken the
similar contentions as Respondent No.3 and 4. An Additional Affidavit was
filed on behalf of Respondent No.2 in support of his earlier Reply.
31. The Petitioner in the Rejoinder to the Reply filed by Respondent
No.2, 3 and 4 , reaffirmed his assertions as made in the Petition.
32. The written submissions were filed on behalf of the Petitioner as
well as Respondent No.3 and 4 wherein the similar assertions as made in
the rival proceedings were agitated.
Submissions heard and record perused.
33. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the Respondent
that this Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable as it is in the
nature of second Revision, the Complaint having been dismissed by the
learned CMM and the Order affirmed in the Revisional jurisdiction by
learned ASJ.
34. The perusal of the grounds on which the quashing has been sought is
in the nature of re-appreciation of the facts as already confirmed by the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1236/2017 Page 10 of 13
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
16:21:11
learned ASJ. There is merit in the contention of the Respondents that this
Petition is only a second Revisional Petition, which is not maintainable.
Section 482 Cr.P.C is not intended to quash the proceeding merely on the
ground that the order may be incorrect or illegal, but only where such
intervention is necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to
secure the ends of justice.
35. In the present case, so is not the situation and the Petition is liable to
be rejected on this ground itself.
36. Even otherwise, the case of the Petitioner may be considered on
merits. It was the case of the Petitioner that he had been approached by the
Respondents for purchase of the property in question and the sale
consideration was agreed at Rs.6 Crores. It was claimed by the Petitioner
that despite his insistence for execution of an MOU, not document got
executed. However, because of the relationship of trust and faith and prior
dealings with the Respondents, the Petitioner gave Rs.4 Crores in cash.
37. The learned CMM as well as learned ASJ had rightly noted that
firstly, the Petitioner is alleged to have entered into a sale transaction
without execution of any documents; and secondly, this transaction had been
undertaken with Respondents, who were admittedly not the owner of the
Suit property. It is absolutely incomprehensible how a transaction of sale
can be said to have been entered, into without dealing with the owner or
even without looking at the property documents or executing some
document in proof thereof.
38. The Petitioner had further asserted that he had arranged the loans
from the Banks through his Companies, in which he was a Director. It is
rightly observed that firstly , there is nothing to show that the loans had been
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1236/2017 Page 11 of 13
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
16:21:11
taken by the Companies in which the Petitioner was a Director; and
secondly, the money in the Companies could not have been withdrawn
unilaterally, even if the Petitioner was a Director. There is no document
whatsoever placed on record to support that the loans had been received in
the Companies or that under what authority and in what manner the amounts
were withdrawn by the Petitioner.
39. Thirdly, if the loans had been taken in the accounts of the Company it
was again not understandable as to why the amounts would be taken in cash
and thereafter given to the Respondents in cash through Receipts.
40. Fourthly, the Receipts on which reliance has been placed by the
Petitioner had been rightly rejected by observing that they had been
executed on plain paper and there was nothing to show that they pertained to
the present transaction.
41. The two Courts have rightly concluded that in the absence of any
document in proof of an Agreement to purchase the property, there was no
prima facie evidence that this alleged payment of Rs.4 Crores in cash, had
been made for the purchase of this property. There is no document
whatsoever to corroborate this alleged transaction of purchase of property.
42. The Petitioner had tried to justify giving the money in cash, by
claiming that he had been dealing with the Respondents for the last 3-4
years, which was evident from the various Sale Deeds placed on record by
him, in which they had been a witness.
43. No matter how close a relationship of trust between the Petitioner and
the Respondents may have been, when it comes to the money transactions, it
has to be corroborated by some cogent evidence.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1236/2017 Page 12 of 13
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
16:21:11
44. In the present case, there is no documentary evidence to show how
the money was arranged by the Petitioner and thereafter, paid to the
Respondents. The Receipts had been rightly rejected, as not proving
anything in favour of the Petitioner.
45. There is no ground established by the Petitioner to show that there
exists the circumstances for quashing of the Order. As already noted above,
it is nothing, but a re-appreciation of the facts as pleaded in the original
Complaint and re-appraisal of the Order of the learned CMM and learned
ASJ.
46. There is not merit in the present Petition, which is hereby
dismissed.
47. The Petition stands disposed of along with the pending
Application(s).
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
APRIL 20, 2026
va
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 1236/2017 Page 13 of 13
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:21.04.2026
16:21:11