Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Ct Cases 2020/2024
Atula Nayar Vs. Ramprastha Developers Pvt Ltd
30.07.2024
ORDER
1. By way of this order, the present application under 156(3)
Cr.PC shall be decided upon and disposed of.
2. As stated in the present application, the facts in brief are that in
the year 2006, the alleged company namely, M/s Ramprastha
Developers Pvt. Ltd. had advertised about developing a world
class city by name of Ramprastha City in Gurgaon, Haryana. It
had been represented by the alleged company that fully developed
plots would be allotted in the said Ramprastha City to be
developed in Sector 92, 93 and 95, Gurgaon, Haryana at Rs.
5,500/- per Sq. Yards at the pre-launch stage.
2.1 The applicant/complainant had accordingly, booked a plot
admeasuring 250 sq. yards and paid Rs. 15 lacs by way of cash
and cheque as full and final payment for the said plot in 2006.
A receipt bearing no. 1766 dated 08.06.2010 for an amount of
Rs. 7,50,000/- was issued in favour of the
applicant/complainant. With respect to payment made by way
of cash, the applicant/complainant was informed that the same
was not required as the size of the plot had been mentioned
clearly in the aforesaid receipt. Inspite of having received the
Page No. 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
full and final payment, the alleged company has failed to hand
over the possession of the plot in question nor the amount paid
by the applicant/complainant has been refunded.
2.2 It has therefore, been prayed that an FIR be directed to be
lodged against the alleged company and the alleged persons for
the aforestated allegations.
3. Reply to the present application has been filed on behalf of
the police station concerned, wherein it has been stated that during
the course of inquiry, one Pushpendra Singh, authorized signatory
for the alleged company had filed reply on behalf of the company.
The version of the alleged company is that the company has been
making efforts to handover the possession of the apartments to the
customers and that the same would be delivered shortly. That the
company had obtained licenses and clearance from the year 2008
to 2012 from government departments for development of the
project and that delay in development of aforesaid project has been
caused due to non-availability of proper roads and lack of
development by government. Also, there had been stay on
development of road by the government authorities/courts.
3.1 It has been further stated that the applicant/complainant
has not made full and final payment with respect to plot in
question. The payment made by the applicant/complainant was
against the tentative registration of plot in the company’s
Page No. 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
future project and that no payment had been received from the
applicant/complainant in cash. Further, payment of Rs.
8,25,000/- had been received from the applicant/complainant
through cheque and receipt had been issued for same. Hence,
final payment is yet to be made by the applicant/complainant.
3.2 It has been further stated that the alleged company had
been granted license dated 09.06.2010 by Director General
Town & Country Planning, Haryana, which has already been
gotten renewed by the company and the same is still valid.
Further, the project would be ready for granting possession
tentatively by the next year and that the company has received
the RERA Registration Certificate from HRERA. Lastly, it has
been stated that the company is ready to repay the amount.
3.3 As per reply received from the Investigating officer, the
matter is civil in nature, having dispute between the
applicant/complainant and the alleged company.
4. Arguments on the present application have been heard and the
record has been perused. It had been submitted by the Learned
counsel for the applicant/complainant that the other matters against
the alleged company had been settled by the company before an
order as to registration of FIR had been passed in the said matters.
He further submitted that the requisite license required for
Page No. 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
development of the project had been procured by the alleged
company in June 2010 while the company had published
advertisement with respect to the said project and had taken money
from the applicants in the year 2006 itself, which means that the
money had been taken much before the company had procured the
license. He further submitted that the alleged company must have
had the license concerned before having taken any money for the
project in question, however, the same was not the case in the
present matter.
4.1 Further, the Learned counsel for the
applicant/complainant relied upon certain authorities in support
of submissions and the same have been perused. He had
submitted that as per the authorities relied upon, if a company
does not have the requisite license to develop project and it
takes money from the applicants or even advertises for the said
project, an offence under section 420 IPC is made out right-
away.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
entire evidence against the alleged company is within possession
of the applicant/complainant and therefore, no new facts or
evidence is required to be unearthed by the police agency. Further,
the present is not even the case where identity of the other party is
undisclosed or where there is a need for custodial interrogation.
Therefore, an investigation by the police authority is not required,
under the given circumstances. In view thereof, this court does not
Page No. 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
deem it feasible to exercise and invoke its discretionary power to
issue a direction for registration of FIR in the present matter.
6. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, the present
application stands dismissed and disposed of. The complainant,
however, is at liberty to lead PSE on complaint filed by her under
section 200 Cr.PC.
(Tarunpreet Kaur)
JMFC-07/PHC/ND/30.07.2024
Page No. 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --