Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 42 Ct. Cases 271/2025
Smt Ritu Sanghi Vs. Sh Ammrites Chaand Dhupar
(K.N. Katju Marg)
16.01.2026
Present: Ms. Teena, Ld. Counsel for the complainant through VC.
The complainant, Ritu Sangi, has moved the present application under
Section 175(3) BNSS seeking directions for registration of FIR and investigation
against eight proposed accused persons.
Briefly stated, the complainant alleges that in March 2024 she intended
to purchase a residential property situated at Rohini and, through a property dealer,
Shailesh Kumar, was introduced to Proposed Accused No. 1, in whose presence
Proposed Accused No. 2 also participated in discussions. The transaction pertained to
the entire first floor (without roof rights) of property bearing No. 3, Block-C, Pocket-9,
Sector-15, Rohini. Proposed Accused No. 1 represented himself to be the absolute
owner in possession and assured correctness of title.
On 31.03.2024, the complainant paid 1,00,000 as earnest money vide	₹
bayana receipt, followed by execution of an Agreement to Sell dated 09.04.2024 for a
total consideration of 65,00,000, out of which 6,50,000 was paid as earnest money.	₹ ₹
The balance amount was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed on
or before 30.06.2024. Clause 5 of the agreement stipulated payment of double the
earnest money in case of default.
It is alleged that prior to receiving the earnest money, Proposed Accused
No. 1 showed photocopies of a Relinquishment Deed and Sale Deed both dated
06.12.2023, purportedly establishing his title. Subsequently, upon verification from the
Sub-Registrar Office, the complainant discovered an earlier Relinquishment Deed
dated 12.07.2022, whereby Proposed Accused Nos. 1 and 3 had already relinquished
their shares in favour of Proposed Accused No. 2, thereby vesting complete ownership
in him.
The complainant alleges suppression of material facts regarding title,
non-disclosure of a legal heir, and execution of subsequent documents despite absence
-- 1 of 3 --
of subsisting rights. It is further alleged that despite extension of time till 30.08.2024
for execution of sale deed, Proposed Accused No. 1 failed to perform his contractual
obligations and stopped responding. A legal notice dated 22.10.2024 demanding
execution of sale deed or payment of 13,00,000 also remained unanswered.	₹
On these allegations, directions under Section 175(3) BNSS have been
sought.
Pursuant to directions of the Court, an Action Taken Report has been
filed under the signatures of the ACP, Prashant Vihar.
As per the ATR, an inquiry was conducted in which the complainant
joined and reiterated the allegations made in the complaint, stating that as per the
Agreement to Sell, she was entitled to double the earnest money on failure of execution
of the sale deed. The proposed accused persons also joined the inquiry and were
confronted with the allegations.
During the inquiry, it was revealed that the parties had entered into a
bayana/earnest money agreement for a total consideration of 65,00,000, out of which	₹
6,50,000 was paid as earnest money ( 1,00,000 in cash and 5,50,000 through	₹ ₹ ₹
cheque).
Upon examining the nature of the dispute and documents, the police
concluded that the dispute primarily relates to monetary claims arising from the
agreement and issues concerning title of the property, both of which were opined to be
civil in nature, and that no cognizable offence was made out.
The scope of jurisdiction under Section 175(3) BNSS is well settled. The
Magistrate is required to examine whether the allegations disclose commission of a
cognizable offence necessitating police investigation, and whether such investigation
is required for collection of evidence not within the reach of the complainant.
In the present case, the identity of all proposed accused persons is undisputed and
already known to the complainant. The complainant has placed on record extensive
documentary material, including bayana receipt and Agreement to Sell, copies of
Relinquishment Deeds dated 12.07.2022 and 06.12.2023, copy of Sale Deed dated
06.12.2023, WhatsApp communications, postal correspondence and tracking reports,
-- 2 of 3 --
legal notice dated 22.10.2024 with proof of service, and complaints made to the SHO
and DCP concerned.
Thus, the complainant is already in complete possession of all material
documents on which her allegations are founded. No forensic, scientific, custodial, or
field investigation has been shown to be necessary at this stage. The dispute essentially
emanates from contractual obligations under an Agreement to Sell, alleged
misrepresentation of title, and consequential monetary claims, including refund or
forfeiture of earnest money.
Whether the subsequent documents are void, whether there was
suppression of material facts, and whether the complainant is entitled to double the
earnest money are all matters that hinge upon interpretation of documents and
adjudication of civil rights, for which efficacious remedies are available before the
competent civil court.
The mere use of expressions such as cheating or fabrication, without
demonstrable necessity of police investigation, cannot by itself convert a
predominantly civil dispute into a criminal one. At this stage, no circumstance is shown
which requires police machinery for collection of evidence beyond the complainant’s
control.
In view of the above discussion, and considering the contents of the
ATR, this Court is of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for issuance of
directions under Section 175(3) BNSS.
Accordingly, the application under Section 175(3) BNSS is dismissed.
However the complainant is not without a judicial succour.
Accordingly, matter be proceeded on merits u/s 223 BNSS.
Put up for PSE on 24.04.2026.
(Himanshu Sehloth)
JMFC-03/ North/ Rohini/ Delhi
16.01.2026
-- 3 of 3 --