In a petition filed before the Delhi High Court to assail an order dated 13-10-2025 by the Sessions Court whereby a revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia refused to invoke its inherent powers and disposed of the petition with Rs. 15,000/- as costs to be paid by the petitioner.
The complainant operated a business in property development. He was approached by one of the petitioners, who stated that he, along with the co-accused, had acquired the right to sell immovable property worth Rs. 1.15 crore and had offered the complainant the opportunity to develop the same. However, a condition was imposed requiring the complainant to pay Rs. 30 lakhs in cash, with the balance payable by cheque upon execution of the sale deed.
After completing the due diligence, the complainant was informed that the purchaser of the property resided abroad and that the petitioner and the co-accused held a power of attorney. While awaiting a No-Objection Certificate from the society, the complainant held another meeting at which he was requested to pay Rs. 10 lakhs to finalize the deal. Over the years, the complainant paid another sum of Rs. 20 lakhs to the petitioner and the co-accused.
Thereafter, the complainant became aware that the original allottee of the property had died prior to the transaction. It was submitted that the petitioner and the co-accused made false representations, and the complainant sought that the will be probated in his name or that his money be returned. After the petitioner and the co-accused had evaded the complainant for a few years, the complainant learned that they had sold the property to another party.
The Court noted that the Sessions Court had concluded that a prima facie case was established against the petitioner and did not find a reason to interfere with the Trial Court’s order whereby the petitioner and co-accused were summoned to face trial for the commission of offences under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The Court stated that neither the amount of Rs. 30 lakhs was refunded to the complainant nor was a forfeiture notice issued. However, it was stated that the present case could have been one of gross injustice if the petitioner had returned the amount to the complainant.
Thus, the Court did not find the case fit to invoke its inherent powers, as such a course would allow a backdoor entry to a second revision petition by the petitioner, which is prohibited under Section 438(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Lastly, the Court directed that Rs. 15,000/- be paid by the petitioner within a week for filing a frivolous petition and dismissed the same.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Amit Alok
For Respondents – Mr. Hemant Mehla (APP)
