news details |
|
|
| Court refuses to quash FIR in bank cheating case | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Nov 22: Dismissing a petition seeking quashment of FIR lodged against the petitioner in cheating case, Justice Sunil Hali of J&K High Court Jammu Wing has directed the investigating officer to go ahead with the investigation.
After hearing Adv Rupinder Singh appearing for the petitioner, Additional Advocate General SC Gupta appearing for the State and SHO Police station Gandhi Nagar and Anil Sethi appearing for the complainant, Justice Hali observed that the petitioner despite knowing that the property was already mortgaged with the Canara Bank concealed the fact and executed an agreement to sell the property and induced the complainant to part Rs.49 lakhs. This is a cognizable offence and there is sufficient material with the Investigating Officer to proceed with the investigation, the Court further observed.
The contention raised by the petitioner has no relevance in deciding the present controversy as it relates to intricacy which in the opinion of Court, can be decided only by the Civil Court. So far as present controversy is concerned, Court finds no reason to interfere with the process of investigation. With these observations, Court dismissed the petition with the direction to Investigating agency to go ahead with the investigation.
According to the petitioner one Gheetin Singh had lodged a complaint against petitioner Kewal Krishan Kohli presently residing at New-Delhi in which the private respondent filed complaint before CJM Jammu which came to be transferred to Court of Sub-Judge Jammu on April 30, 2007, Court directed SHO Police Station Gandhi Nagar Jammu for investigation under law. The allegations leveled in the complaint were that an agreement was executed by Kewal Krishan Kohli, petitioner in favour of complainant Gheetin Singh for sale of house No 20 B/C Gandhi Nagar Jammu for an amount of Rs 69 lakhs and in lieu of that an amount of Rs 49 lakh was received by the petitioner from complainant. After receiving the amount a General Power of Attorney came to be executed on July 29, 2000. In the agreement it had been specifically mentioned that the property is free from all encumbrances and charges. Subsequently it was revealed that the petitioner accused much before the execution of agreement to sell, had mortgaged the property in question in favour of Canara Bank and had obtained a loan of Rs 14 lakhs. This fact came to the notice of the complainant when he came across the information that a civil suit was pending in the Court of Bank Cases Jammu wherein the factum of mortgage of the house in favour of Canara bank has been projected. Upon this complainant filed a complaint and the police registered a case against the petitioner; the petitioner filed this petition seeking quashment of FIR. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
