Money Transactions Must Be Corroborated By Cogent Evidence, Not Just Trust: Delhi High Court In ₹6 Crore Property Fraud Claim
A petition was filed by petitioner challenging the rejection of his criminal complaint alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust in a property deal worth ₹6 crore.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that financial transactions, particularly those involving large sums, must be supported by cogent evidence and cannot rest solely on claims of trust between parties.
A petition was filed by petitioner challenging the rejection of his criminal complaint alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust in a property deal worth ₹6 crore.
A Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said, “No matter how close a relationship of trust between the Petitioner and the Respondents may have been, when it comes to the money transactions, it has to be corroborated by some cogent evidence.”
The Court added, “In the present case, there is no documentary evidence to show how the money was arranged by the Petitioner and thereafter, paid to the Respondents. The Receipts had been rightly rejected, as not proving anything in favour of the Petitioner.”
Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Utkarsh appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner had filed a complaint under Sections 406,420,120B,34 IPC, claiming that the respondents induced him to purchase a property in Swasthya Vihar, Delhi, and persuaded him to pay ₹4.39 crore in cash between November 2008 and January 2009. He alleged that the respondents appropriated the money and committed criminal breach of trust and cheating.
Despite insisting on an MOU, the petitioner claimed that no document got executed due to relationship of trust and faith and prior dealings with the respondents.
The High Court noted that both the Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge had already dismissed the complaint, highlighting multiple inconsistencies. The courts found it beyond any logic that such a large amount would be paid merely on the basis of assurance without verification of property documents or execution of any agreement.
The judgment observed it was absolutely incomprehensible that a sale transaction could be undertaken without dealing with the owner of the property, and without looking at the property documents or executing some document in proof thereof.
The Court emphasized that there was no documentary evidence to show how the money was arranged or paid. The alleged receipts were executed on plain paper and did not establish any link to the property transaction.
It further noted that even if there was prior trust between the parties, when it comes to the money transactions, it has to be corroborated by some cogent evidence.
The claim that loans were arranged through companies was also rejected, with the Court observing there was nothing to show that such loans were taken or lawfully withdrawn.
The Court held that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was effectively a second Revisional Petition, which is not permissible. It reiterated that inherent powers are to be exercised only to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice, which was not the case here.
Concluding that the petitioner’s case lacked merit and amounted to a re-appreciation of facts already examined, the Court held, “The claim of the Petitioner was full of inherent infirmities and improbabilities.”
Cause Title: N.G. Dev v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., [2026:DHC:3265]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, Advocate Mayank Sharma
Respondents: Advocates Utkarsh, M.N. Dudeja
