Delhi High Court Dismisses Second Revision Petition in Property Fraud Case
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a man's second revision petition in a property cheating case, emphasizing that legal prohibitions cannot be circumvented through what it termed a "backdoor entry." The court found the petition to be frivolous and imposed a fine of Rs 15,000, directing the amount to be deposited on the Bharat Ke Veer platform within one week.
Court's Observations on Legal Prohibitions
Justice Girish Kathpalia, presiding over the case, observed that "what is explicitly prohibited by law cannot be allowed a backdoor entry unless the petitioner is able to establish a case of gross injustice." This statement came as the court rejected the petitioner's plea, which followed unsuccessful attempts in both the trial court and the session court.
Background of the Property Cheating Case
The case originated from allegations by a property developer, the complainant, who claimed that the petitioner and other co-accused induced him to make a part payment of Rs 30 lakh for purchasing and developing a property in Shivalik. The accused allegedly represented that they had authority to sell the property through a power of attorney.
However, it was later discovered that the original allottee of the property had passed away, rendering the power of attorney invalid. The property was neither transferred to the complainant nor was the part payment returned. Further investigations revealed that the property had been sold to third parties, leading to criminal proceedings for cheating and conspiracy.
Court's Findings and Rationale
After examining the evidence, the trial court found a prima facie case against the petitioner, and the High Court upheld this decision. The court noted that the Rs 30 lakh received by the petitioner was neither refunded nor subject to a forfeiture notice. It stated that interference based on inherent powers would only be justified if the petitioner had returned the amount, potentially indicating gross injustice.
The court highlighted that the petitioner and co-accused had sold the property to another party, who subsequently resold it. This further undermined the petitioner's claims and reinforced the court's decision to dismiss the revision petition as an attempt to gain unauthorized access through legal loopholes.
Arguments Presented by the Petitioner
The petitioner's counsel, advocate Amit Alok, argued that the Rs 30 lakh was paid to co-accused individuals and not directly to his client. He claimed the petitioner only signed receipts at the request of the co-accused due to ill health. However, it was admitted that the petitioner did sign the receipts for the amount.
Alok further submitted that the amount was forfeited because the complainant failed to pay the balance in time. Despite these arguments, the court found them insufficient to overturn the lower courts' rulings or justify a second revision.
Imposition of Fine and Legal Implications
In addition to dismissing the petition, the court imposed a fine of Rs 15,000, to be deposited online with the Bharat Ke Veer platform. This platform supports families of martyred central armed police forces personnel, adding a philanthropic dimension to the penalty.
The court's decision underscores the judiciary's stance against frivolous litigation and attempts to exploit legal processes. It reinforces the principle that clear legal prohibitions must be respected, and exceptions require substantial proof of injustice.
This ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability in property transactions, particularly in cases involving allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. It also highlights the courts' role in upholding legal standards and preventing abuse of judicial mechanisms.
