Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CT Cases 621/2026
Kamal Kishore Kapoor Vs. Amogh Sabharwal and Anr / (Preet Vihar)
10.07.2026
Present: Nikhil Kapoor, son of complainant with Ld. Counsel Sh. Rakesh
Singh and Sh. Mukul Sharma.
IO SI Shankar in person.
Vide this order, I shall decide an application u/s.175(3) BNSS.
2. Brief facts as mentioned in the application are that in the month
of October-November, 2023, proposed accused no.4 approached the
complainant and one Jitender Parmar (friend of complainant) offering an
industrial property no.1-D/3, Udyog Vihar, Ecotech II, Greater Noida
(U.P.)-201306 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the property in question’). Proposed
accused no.4 represented himself to be the Manager of legal affairs of
proposed accused no.1 & 2. He assured legality, marketability, saleability and
clear title of the property in question. He personally assured the complainant
of the transaction.
3. It is further stated that after discussion organized by proposed
accused no.4 at complainant’s office where complainant held meeting with
proposed accused no.1, 2 & 4, who induced the complainant to purchase the
property in question and assured of completion of all the legal formalities
within the stipulated time. It is stated that acting upon the assurance and
inducement of the proposed accused persons, complainant entered into an
agreement to purchase the property in question on 24.02.2024. Proposed
accused undertook to provide all requisite NOCs, no due certificate,
operational, functional, completion certificate and permission from Greater
Noida Authority for transfer of the property in question within six weeks of
________________________________________________________________________________________________
CT Cases 621/2026 Page No.1 of 5
Kamal Kishore Kapoor Vs. Amogh Sabharwal & Anr. (Preet Vihar)
-- 1 of 5 --
execution of the agreement to sell. All the relevant charges for such
permissions were to be borne by the proposed accused.
4. It is further stated that proposed accused persons deliberately
and pre-meditatedly projected two different names i.e. Eliakim and Sammi
Electronics to be the same entity to create confusion regarding true
ownership and legal status of the property in question. Complainant came to
know that the property in question is recorded in the name of Eliakim
Electronics Pvt. Ltd., when inquired from the Greater Noida authority,
thereby proposed accused concealing regarding the ownership in question. It
is stated that proposed accused no.1 received the earnest money in his own
account inspite of the fact that the property in question was registered/
allotted in the name of Eliakim Electronics Pvt. Ltd. which clearly reflects
dishonest intention of proposed accused no.1.
5. It is further stated that the complainant was told that owing to
some technical issues, proposed accused cannot receive the money in their
company’s account and therefore, the amount was transferred in the personal
account of proposed accused no.1. It was later found out that the bank
account of the company was frozen due to pendency of other cases of fraud/
cheating. Complainant also came to know that Sammy Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
had no right to transfer/ sell the property in question
6. It is further stated that complainant paid about Rs.2.05 crores as
earnest money. Proposed accused persons induced the complainant, in order
to dupe him, to pay additional amount as urgent requirement to complete
remaining formalities. Complainant paid additional amount of Rs.1.64 crores
in the month of May-June, 2024.
7. It is further stated that that complainant discovered that
documents shown by proposed accused persons i.e. slips regarding payment
________________________________________________________________________________________________
CT Cases 621/2026 Page No.2 of 5
Kamal Kishore Kapoor Vs. Amogh Sabharwal & Anr. (Preet Vihar)
-- 2 of 5 --
of lease amount and functional certificates were forged & fabricated.
Proposed accused failed to complete the transaction by stipulated date i.e.
30.09.2024. Proposed accused no.1 repeatedly assured the complainant to
compensate him for the delay caused. It is stated that the assured compliances
could not have been complied with as they were not possible to be fulfilled
legally. Complainant also came to know that the property in question was
subject to several encumbrances which were not disclosed to the complainant
by the proposed accused. Complainant met proposed accused no.1 on
05.01.2026, however, he did not receive any satisfactory reply and in fact
complainant was extended threat by proposed accused no.1.
8. It is further stated that the complainant had been cheated of his
hard-earned money by the proposed accused as Sammi Electronics India Pvt.
Ltd. is not doing any business activity and has only been formed/ established
to deceive others including banks and various authorities. Complainant was
constrained to file a complaint with SHO PS Preet Vihar and other higher
police authorities, but to no avail. Hence, the present application.
9. ATR has been called in the present case as per which the matter
is a civil dispute and has been given a criminal colour to enforce monetary
recovery.
10. Arguments heard. Record perused.
11. Complainant has relied upon the agreement to sell dated
24.02.2024 executed between Sammi Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. and the
complainant. Complainant has also filed the record of payments made to
proposed accused no.1, a letter of authorization issued in favour of proposed
accused no.1 by Sammi Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. authorizing the proposed
accused no.1 to deal on behalf of the said company, a copy of lease deed
dated 28.10.2005 executed between Greater Noida Industrial Development
________________________________________________________________________________________________
CT Cases 621/2026 Page No.3 of 5
Kamal Kishore Kapoor Vs. Amogh Sabharwal & Anr. (Preet Vihar)
-- 3 of 5 --
Authority and Eliakim Electronics Pvt. Ltd. as per which the property in
question has been leased to Eliakim Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Complainant has
further relied upon a letter dated 22.04.2020 issued by DGM SBI Stressed
Assets Management branch II, Janpath as per which the property in question
was kept as collateral by one Simmtronics Semiconductors Ltd. and proposed
accused no.1 herein was the party to the same.
12. Perusal of record shows that the property in question had been
allotted to one Eliakim Electronics Pvt. Ltd. by the Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority, the copy of lease deed regarding which is already on
record. Inspite of having the knowledge that the property in question had
been allotted to Eliakim Electronics Pvt. Ltd., proposed accused no.1 being
the Director of proposed accused no.5, entered into an agreement to sell
dated 24.02.2024 on behalf of proposed accused no.5 i.e. Sammi Electronics
India Pvt. Ltd., acting upon an authority issued by proposed accused no.5 and
further received Rs.54 lakhs in his personal account as the earnest money as
well as additional payments. Proposed accused no.1 further received Rs.15
lakhs as part payment of the property in question, the receipt and
acknowledgment of which is also on record. Therefore, it appears that the
agreement to sell dated 24.02.2024 has been entered into and executed by
proposed accused no.1 on behalf of proposed accused no.5 without having
any authority to sell the property in question, same being allotted to some
other entity by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority. The
other proposed accused are stated to have misrepresented and deceived the
complainant to enter into the above-stated agreement to sell, in conspiracy
with each other.
13. Further, it is pertinent to mention that agreement to sell dated
24.02.2024, has been executed in Delhi as has been mentioned in the same
________________________________________________________________________________________________
CT Cases 621/2026 Page No.4 of 5
Kamal Kishore Kapoor Vs. Amogh Sabharwal & Anr. (Preet Vihar)
-- 4 of 5 --
and the office of complainant is stated to be within the territorial jurisdiction
of this court i.e. PS Preet Vihar and the said agreement to sell was executed at
the office of the complainant.
14. It is a settled law that a Magistrate u/s.156(3) Cr.PC [now 175(3)
BNSS] is not required to go into factum of genuineness of allegations
contained in the application and if the contents of the application discloses a
cognizable offence, Magistrate has power to pass order for registration of FIR
and investigation thereof. The assessment of evidence and drawing of
inferences not required to be done u/s.156(3) Cr.PC [now 175(3) BNSS].
Whenever an application moved u/s.156(3) Cr.PC [now 175(3) BNSS]
discloses a cognizable offence, the Magistrate is bound to direct the police
for registration of FIR and investigation thereof. The Magistrate has to
scrutiny the complaint to the limited extent.
15. In view of the discussion above, this court believes that prima
facie cognizable offences of cheating and forgery have been committed by
the proposed accused persons in conspiracy with each other. Therefore, SHO
PS Preet Vihar is directed to initiate the investigation on the complaint of the
complainant after formally registering the FIR. Compliance report be filed
within three days. Accordingly, application u/s.175(3) BNSS stands disposed
of. Copy of this order along with copy of complaint be sent to SHO
concerned for necessary compliance.
Put up for further proceedings on 14.07.2026.
(RINKU JAIN)
ACJM (EAST)/KKD/DELHI
10.07.2026
________________________________________________________________________________________________
CT Cases 621/2026 Page No.5 of 5
Kamal Kishore Kapoor Vs. Amogh Sabharwal & Anr. (Preet Vihar)
-- 5 of 5 --