Interim Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 46 Ct. Cases / 21513/2024
URBANE VIBE EXIM PVT LTD. AND ANR Vs. ROSHNI DEVI /0
(Kanjhawala)
19.05.2025
Present : 	Sh. Abhishek Srivastava, Ld Counsel for the complainant through VC.
Arguments were heard earlier.
Order on Application u/s 175(3) BNSS
1. Briefly stated, complainant Sh. Mahesh Rai is the director of two companies
namely URBANE VIBE EXIM PVT LTD and AVN INFOTECH PVT LTD
and has been authorised to pursue this complaint on behalf of both the
companies and prays for registration of FIR against the accused persons.
2. As per the complainant the companies were looking for investment in
agricultural land in the area of village Karala, Delhi and in the month of
august 2023, a deal was finalized with one Smt. Roshani Devi, w/o Sh.
Ramphal for purchase of total 8 bighas of land. The deal was arranged by the
following middle-men/property dealers: -
a. Sh. Kamal Kant
b. Sh. Rajender Singh Arora
c. Kusam vats
d. Deepak Sharma/Deepak vats
e. Smt. Manju Mittal
3. Roshni Devi also produced a chain of ownership documents as per which
recorded owner Smt Ramwati Devi sold the land to one Ranjeeta Upadhyaya
in the year 2008 and Ranjeeta Upadhyaya sold the land to Roshni Devi in
-- 1 of 6 --
the year 2022. (The latter sale deed will be hereinafter referred to as ‘Year
2022 sale deed’) Certified copy of sale deeds dated 07.03.2022, 06.09.2008
and Khatauni of the year 2014-2015 reflecting the name of Smt. Ranjeeta
Upadhyaya was also shown to the complainant.
4. Upon seeing the previous chain of ownership and upon assurances given by
the accused persons the complainant companies entered into two separate
sale agreements both dated 05.09.2023 purchasing 4 bighas each of the total
8 bighas of land. The consideration value in both the agreements was
mutually decided for Rs. 44,17,000/- by both the parties although the actual
consideration amount was Rs 6 crore. The amount of Rs 5,10,00,000/- was
paid in cash by the complainant to Smt. Roshni Devi and to the middle
men/property dealers in nine different installments before the presentation of
the sale deed before the sub-registrar. The possession of the property was
handed over to the complainant on 06.12.2023 and sale deeds (dated
04.12.2023 & 06.12.2023) were presented before the Sub-Registrar for
registration. However, the sale deeds were not registered for want of NOC.
5. Complainant was shocked to know about the objection and upon query
Roshni Devi could not give any proper reply. Thereafter, upon queries made
by the complainant himself and through reply to RTI applications he was
informed that NOC could not be granted because of the objections filed by
Ranjeeta Upadhayay.
6. Upon enquiry it transpired that Ranjeeta Upadhyaya has filed three civil
suits against Manju Mittal and Roshini Devi before Rohini courts qua the
same subject land and even one FIR bearing no. 0547/2022 has been lodged
at the instance of Ranjeeta Upadhyaya. In these suits and FIR Ranjeeta
-- 2 of 6 --
Upadhyaya has essentially claimed that she never sold the property to
Roshni Devi and was impersonated at the time of execution of the Year
2022 sale deed.
7. The details of all three cases are as follows:-
a. Civil suit no, CS/SC1/852/2022 before court of Ld. Civil Judge,
Rohini Courts, Delhi against Smt. Manju Mittal alleging that
Defendant is disturbing the possession of the plaintiff. This suit was
withdrawn on the basis of settlement wherein all parties compromised
and decree of permanent injunction was passed vide order dated
19.07.2023, wherein joint statement of Smt. Roshni and Smt. Manju
Mittal was recorded and they stated that they will not interfere in the
possession of Smt Ranjeeta.
b. Civil suit no. CS/DJ/596/2022 before court of Ld. DJ, Rohini against
Smt. Ranjeeta Upadhyay (impersonated), Sh. Rajender Arora (SPA
Holder of Smt. Ranjeeta Upadhyay) and S.H.O P.S. kanjhawala
(defendants) alleging that Ranjeeta may be declared as owner of the
subjeet land, however said suit was withdrawn by giving statement
that parties have settled the matter.
c. Civil suit no. CS/DJ/630/2023 before court of Ld. DJ, North-west
against Smt. Manju Mittal, Smt. Roshani devi and sub-registrar,
Kanjhawala alleging that sale deed 07.03.2022 executed by Ranjecta
Upadhaya in favour of Roshini be declared as null and void. This suit
was withdrawn on the basis of settlement and the Year 2022 sale deed
was declared null and void.
-- 3 of 6 --
8. The complainant is aggrieved that the accused persons have cheated him in a
well thought out conspiracy with each other and the police failed to take
action despite filing complaints.
9. An Action Taken Report (ATR) was filed in this case. I had also interacted
with EO Insp. Pawan. On behalf of the police it is not disputed that the
information discloses cognizable offence, nor is it submitted that police
investigation is not necessary in the given facts. The only submission has
been that an FIR no. 0547/2022 PS Kanjhawla has already been registered at
the instance of Ranjeeta Upadhyaya and the allegations made by the
complainant can be investigated in the same FIR.
10. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued forcefully that it was necessary to
register a separate FIR in the instant case as it was quite apparent that the
suits filed by Ranjeeta Upadhyaya and the FIR are all collusive in nature and
there is a strong likelihood that Ranjeeta Upadhyaya is an accomplice in the
scam. Ld. Counsel has vehemently argued that the fact that the accused
persons took a payment of Rs 6 Crore from him on the basis of a document
(i.e. Year 2022 Sale Deed) which was declared to be null and void on their
own submission made before the Ld. Civil Court shows the bold nature of
offence and the fact that the conspiracy was quite elaborate and well thought
out. He further submitted that since the FIR no. 547/2022 is a collusive one,
no effective investigation with regard to allegations made by him in the
present complaint can be done in the said FIR. He further submits that if the
complainant/Ranjeeta Upadhyaya turns uncooperative during the
investigation or supports the accused persons in quashing the said FIR on
account of mutual settlement then the complainant herein would be rendered
without remedy.
-- 4 of 6 --
11. It is trite that when considering an application under Section 156(3) CrPC,
the court must be convinced that the information suggests the commission of
cognizable offenses and that police investigation is essential for gathering
evidence that the complainant cannot independently obtain. Recently, the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi also ruled that a Magistrate cannot direct FIR
registration solely upon the complainant’s request (see Alok Kumar v
Harsh Mander, CRL.M.C. 1463/2020 & CRL.M.A. 5732/2020, decided on
21.07.2023). Further, the court must remain vigilant against the misuse of
criminal law for resolving civil disputes (see Kunti v State of U.P. (2023) 6
SCC 109).
12. Bearing these principles in mind, and after examining the core allegations
and the Action Taken Report in totality. I am of the view that the complaint
does disclose commission of cognizable offence. Further police investigation
also appears to be essential as the allegations disclose an elaborate and multi
layered crime. Further, I have compared the allegations in this complaint
with the FIR no. 547/2022. Although there are certain common points of
determination in both the cases, for effective investigation of the allegations
in the present complaint, it also needs to be investigated whether there is any
collusion and conspiracy between the actual Ranjeeta Upadhyaya and the
accused persons. Moreover, the money trail also needs to be uncovered in
the present case, which is not directly under investigation in FIR no.
547/2022. Accordingly, I am satisfied that a compelling case has been made
out for registration of a separate FIR.
13. Accordingly, application is allowed. SHO concerned is directed to register
an FIR under appropriate sections of law within 10 working days from today
and commence investigation forthwith.
-- 5 of 6 --
14. Copy of FIR be communicated to the complainant.
15. Matter be listed for status of investigation on 25.07.2025.
16. Nothing stated herein shall be considered to be any observation on merits in
the FIR no. 547/2022.
17. Recently, in RBANMS Educational Institution v B. Gunashekar &
Another (Civil Appeal no. 5200/2025 decided on 16.04.2025) the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has directed that whenever, a suit is filed with a claim that Rs.
2,00,000/- and above is paid by cash towards any transaction, the courts must
intimate the same to the jurisdictional Income Tax Department to verify the
transaction and the violation of Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, if any
(para 18.1 (A). Although the said direction has been issued with respect to
suits, however, considering the objective behind the decision and further
considering that a cash payment in excess of Rs 5 crores is alleged to have been
made by Companies, it would be appropriate to send a copy of this order to the
jurisdictional income tax department, for any appropriate action at their end.
(APOORV BHARDWAJ)
JMFC-02, NORTH WEST DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS DELHI/19.05.2025
-- 6 of 6 --