Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable as a second revision to re-examine concurrent findings of inherent improbability.

The Petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 406/420/120B/34 of the IPC, alleging that Respondent No. 2 induced him to purchase a property in Swasthya Vihar, Delhi, for Rs. 6 Crores

The Petitioner claimed to have paid Rs. 4.39 Crores in cash to the Respondents between November 2008 and January 2009 without executing an MOU or Agreement to Sell

The Petitioner alleged that the Respondents, acting in conspiracy, misappropriated the funds and cheated him

The learned CMM dismissed the complaint on 14.10.2015, observing that the Petitioner failed to prove the arrangement or payment of such a huge sum

This dismissal was upheld by the learned ASJ on 04.02.2017, who noted inherent improbabilities, such as the lack of due diligence, mismatch in plot numbers, and the fact that the actual property owner was never involved in the transaction

The Petitioner subsequently approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge these concurrent findings

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the inherent powers of the High Court, noting that it should not be used to bypass the bar on second revisions unless necessary to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice

The court relied on the principles from Pepsi Foods vs. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998), which established that a Magistrate is not a "silent spectator" during pre-summoning and must satisfy themselves of the truthfulness of allegations before summoning an accused

It further considered the legal requirements for "Cheating" (Section 420 IPC) and "Criminal Breach of Trust" (Section 406 IPC), emphasizing the necessity of cogent evidence to corroborate alleged cash transactions

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s claim was inherently improbable and lacked documentary support.

Despite being an experienced realtor, the Petitioner allegedly paid over Rs. 4 Crores in cash to individuals who were not the owners of the property, without verifying title documents or executing a formal agreement

The Court found that the Petitioner’s explanation regarding the arrangement of funds via corporate loans was unsupported by evidence, as company funds cannot be unilaterally withdrawn for individual transactions

the court noted that the receipts provided were on plain paper and lacked specificity regarding the property deal

Legally, the Court determined that the petition was essentially a "second revision" disguised as a Section 482 petition, which is generally impermissible unless a grave miscarriage of justice is shown

The Court concluded that the concurrent findings of the CMM and ASJ were sound, as the Petitioner had failed to provide prima facie evidence of any criminal offense

On the merits, the Court held that there was no documentary evidence to corroborate the alleged transaction or the payment of funds

Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, affirming the orders of the lower courts