Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CC No. 763/2021
CONCEPT CAPITAL INFRA PROJECTS PVT LTD
Vs.
ANSAL LANDMARK TOWNSHIP PVT LTD AND ORS
21.08.2021
Proceedings conducted through video conferencing on Cisco Webex.
ORDER
Present: None.
The brief facts stated in the complaint are that, the complainant M/s
Concept Capital Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd (CCIPL) through its Director, Suninder Sandha had
filed complaint against M/s Ansals Landmark Township Pvt. Ltd. The complainant alleged
that his company M/s Concept Capital Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd (CCIPL) was approached by
representatives of alleged company M/s Ansals API and Ansal Landmark Township Pvt.
Ltd (ALTPL) in the month of May, 2015. The alleged company had planned to launch an
integrated township at Sushant Aquapolis, Doondhera, Ghaziabad, UP. Thereafter, on the
basis of representation, the complainant met the MD Sh. Sushil Ansal and Directors
Pranav Ansal, CEO, Project Head and others. All alleged in one voice represented that
they would be bringing/ developing an integrated township at Sushant Aquapolis,
Doondhera, Ghaziabad, UP and they assured that the said land is free from all
encumbrances and represented that they were in the process of obtaining permission/
sanctions from competent authorities. Based on their assurances and representations,
the complainant was induced to purchase a parcel of land and representation the
complainant was induced to purchase a parcel of land and FSI in the integrated
Township for developing a commercial space. The complainant purchased 5278.777 sq.
mtrs of land over which, CCIPPL would be allowed to naturally develop 1.50 lakh sq.
ft.approx. of FSI for which the responsibility to obtain sanction plans from the competent
authority would be solely dependent on Ansal group. Thereafter, a MOU cum Term Sheet
was executed between complainant and Ansal Group on 25.06.15 for total sale
consideration of Rs. 52,20,40,715/. At the time of execution of MOU, the alleged
company was allowed to build only 1,00,000 sq. ft. approx. of FSI on the parcel of land
5278.777 sq. mtrs. sold to complainant, however, it was clear understanding that
-- 1 of 4 --
additional 49,154.49 sq. ft will be provided by alleged with the complete sanctions from
the competent authority. Accordingly, as per MOU the complainant company started
making timely payments as per payment plan to alleged company and the possession of
land was handed over to complainant company on 30.06.15. Thereafter, the complainant
started construction and executing provisional allotments to its allottee/ customers.
Approximately 63 crores were spent in construction by complainant company also the
complainant company also made the payments of Rs. 17,76,08,921/ to alleged company
as per MOU. However, the alleged company failed to provide the sanctioned plan
approved from competent authority for total 1,49,154.49 sq. ft. area. Shockingly, in month
of May, 2016, it came to knowledge of complainant company the land at PIQ is
encumbered and the same has been mortgaged to M/s Peninsula Brook fields, which was
never disclosed, either in MOU or any other correspondence or meetings. Then, the
request was made to Ansal Group to clear the land and also provide sanction plan
approved from GDA for total area 1,49,54.49 sq. ft. but nothing substantial was done by
Ansal Group. It further came in the knowledge of complainant that the said land of PIQ
was came under litigation with Dalmia Group due to which the area of said project
Sushant Aquapolis reduced. Then, the complainant have tried to communicate with
owners of Ansals Group but no communication was made by Ansal Group. The
complainant had requested to return the investment of complainant worth Rs.
17,76,08,921/ towards the MOU and Rs. 63 crores approx. toward the construction,
which has been entrusted upon them, however, the alleged categorically refused to return
any payment/ investment of complainant.
ATR filed by the IO.
Arguments heard. Record perused carefully.
The facts depict that complainant entered into MOU with M/s Ansal
Landmark Pvt. Ltd on 25.06.2015. As per the complainant, he entered into MOU on the
assurances of the accused persons that the land in question is free from all
encumbrances and the process of obtaining permission / sanctions from the competent
authority is under way. The complainant made timely payments as per the payment plan
and thereafter, he received possession of the land on 30.6.2015. Complainant even
started construction and executed provisional allotment to his customers and made
payment to the tune of Rs. 17,76,08,921/ to the accused company as per MOU.
However, in the year 2016, the accused company failed to provide sanction plan and it
came to the fore that the said land is mortgaged to M/s Peninsula Brooks Fields which
-- 2 of 4 --
fact was evidently concealed from complainant at the time of MOU.
These facts exfacie disclose the commission of offence of cheating and
other related offences as apparently complainant was made to part with his money on the
basis of inducement and representation by the accused company through its
representative regarding the ownership of the land in question at the time of MOU which
later was found to be mortgaged to some other entity at the relevant time.
The law relating registration of FIR is well settled as the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. has held in para 111 as under:
1) Registration of FIR is mandatory under section 154 of the Code, if the
information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary
enquiry is permissible in such a situation.
2) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates
the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to
ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
3) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must
be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a
copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith
and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the
complaint and not proceeding further.
4) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable
offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not
register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
5) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the
information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any
cognizable offence.”
Accordingly, in the considered view of this Court, the complaint discloses
commission of cognizable offences and it is directed that on the basis of complaint an FIR
be registered against accused persons and same be investigated upon. Application is
allowed.
Copy of the order be sent to concerned IO/ACP for compliance.
Put up for compliance report on 23.08.2021.
It is certified that the connection during hearing through Cisco Webex was
-- 3 of 4 --
uninterrupted and the voice and video was clear and the Ld. APP for the State and Ld.
Counsel for the parties appearing through V/C did not raise any objection regarding the
quality of V/C.
Announced in the open Court
on dated 21.08.2021
(Dr. Pankaj Sharma)
CMM/ND/Patiala House Courts
New Delhi/21.08.2021
-- 4 of 4 --