Sumit Bhasin Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.


Quick Summary
This case involves allegations of investment fraud where the petitioner, Sumit Bhasin, and others allegedly induced the complainant to invest a significant sum of money with promises of doubling the investment within a few years. Despite multiple agreements and assurances, the principal amount and promised returns were not repaid. The petitioner sought to quash the complaint and set aside a previous court order.

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
 

FAQ :

The petitioner, Sumit Bhasin, prayed for the setting aside of an order dated 16.12.2020 and the quashing of a complaint filed against him.

The complainant was allegedly allured to invest Rs 50 lacs in the company of the accused with an assurance that the amount would double in five years.

The accused allegedly induced the complainant to invest a further Rs 20 lacs with a promise to return Rs 1 Crore by March 2014, and later Rs 2 crores by March 2019.

Yes, a MoU dated 26.07.2018 was executed, and a cheque was issued. Later, another MoU dated 05.05.2019 was executed, and a Promissory Note was issued on 18.02.2019 acknowledging a liability of Rs 2,47,53,000/-.

A Promissory Note issued on 18.02.2019 acknowledged a liability to pay an amount of Rs 2,47,53,000/- to the complainant and his wife.

 

Guest
Published in LAW
Views : 450
downloaded 275 times

Comments




CCI Pro



Company
ARTICLESHIP 07 September 2026
Article/ Paid Assistant

Murali and Sumeet Chartered Accountant

Bengaluru

CA Foundation

View Details
Company
20 September 2026
Semi Qualified CA

Navin & Associates

Mumbai

CA Inter

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 04 September 2026
Accounts Executive

Hema Yashwanth & Associates

Chennai

B.Com

View Details
Company
27 August 2026
ACCOUNTANT

CHARUPREETI & CO

Noida

Graduate (Any)

View Details
Company
09 September 2026
SENIOR AUDITOR & ACCOUNTS MANAGER

Anupam Parashar & Co.

Ghaziabad

CA Final

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 26 August 2026
Article Assistant

ANIVESH CONSULTANTS LLP

Gurgaon

CA Inter

View Details
Company
19 September 2026
Finance Manager

Mugdha Art Studio

Hyderabad

CA

View Details
Company
Featured 11 September 2026
Audit Executive

RBSM Corporate Advisors Private Limited

Pune

CA

View Details