CA Loan Bajaj Finserv
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Sumit Bhasin Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

LinkedIn


Court :
Delhi High Court

Brief :
“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’bleCourt be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated16.12.2020 passed in Revision Petition No. 97/2020, by thelearned District and Sessions Judge, West District, Tis HazariCourts, Delhi, and quash the complaint filed by the Respondentno.2, being CC No. 7398/19, pending before the MetropolitanMagistrate, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi against the petitioner.”

Citation :
CRL. M.C. 296/2021 & Crl.M.A. 1529/2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on : 05.02.2021
Pronounced on :10.03.2021
CRL. M.C. 296/2021 & Crl.M.A. 1529/2021

SUMIT BHASIN ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mandeep Singh Vinaik, Advocate.

Versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State.

Mr. Sonal Anand, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J.

1. The present petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’bleCourt be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated16.12.2020 passed in Revision Petition No. 97/2020, by thelearned District and Sessions Judge, West District, Tis HazariCourts, Delhi, and quash the complaint filed by the Respondentno.2, being CC No. 7398/19, pending before the MetropolitanMagistrate, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi against the petitioner.”

2. The facts of the case are that in January-2009, accused No2 Guneet Bhasin. accused No. 3 Sumit Bhasin (Petitioner herein) and accused No.4 Smt. Summy Bhasin approached Respondent No 2/Complainant and allured him into investing Rs 50 lacs in their company with the assurance that same would be doubled in five years and relying on such assurances, he invested his lifetimesavings with them; and in March-2014 the accused persons failedto return the principal amount with interest being total of Rs 1Crore but then he was further inducted to invest Rs 20 lacs morewith the promise to return Rs. 2 crores on or before March-2019 and that MoU dated 26.07.2018 was executed, whereby accusedpersons undertook to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.47,53,519/- and a cheque was also issued; and that later MoUdated 05.05.2019 was executed and it was promised that thecomplainant would be made a partner in the business and receiptof Rs. 50 lacs as principal amount was retained with the promisethat it would be safe and secure with them and it would becomeRs. 2 crores in 2019: and that on 18.02.2019 another PromissoryNote was issued by accused No.2/ Guneet Bhasin in favour of thecomplainant and his wife acknowledging liability to pay an amount of Rs. 2,47,53,000/- payable to the complainant and his wife on or before 30.06.2019. 

To know more in details find the attachment file
 

 

Guest
on 09 April 2021
Published in LAW
Views : 38
downloaded 8 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags
X

Do you have any Tax Queries

Submit