Trusted Relationships Cannot Replace Proof In Money Transactions; Cogent Evidence Essential: 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.Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while dismissing a petition under Section 482 CrPC, challenging concurrent orders of the Trial Court and Revisional Court, which had refused to summon the accused in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case.Petitioner had alleged that he was induced by the respondents to invest in a property transaction and had paid approximately ₹4.39 crore in cash based on their assurances. He claimed that the respondents later misappropriated the amount, thereby committing offences under Sections 406, 420, 120B, and 34 IPC.However, both the Trial Court and the Sessions Court had found serious inconsistencies and lack of credible evidence supporting the alleged transaction. The complaint was dismissed on the ground that there was no proof of payment, no agreement to sell, and no reliable documentation linking the respondents to the property deal.Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that he had longstanding business relations with the respondents and had acted on mutual trust, which justified the absence of formal documentation.Rejecting this contention, the Court held,“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…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.”Further in the facts of the case, the Court noted that the Petitioner undertook the alleged transaction with the Respondents who were not even the owners of the Suit property. “It is absolutely incomprehensible how a transaction of sale can be said to have been entered, into without dealing with the owner or even without looking at the property documents or executing some document in proof thereof,” it said.As such, the Court refused to direct summoning of Respondents and dismissed the plea.Appearance: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State. Mr. M.N. Dudeja, Advocate for RespondentsCase title: NG Dev v. State & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 405Case no.: CRL.M.C. 1236/2017Click here to read order

Trusted Relationships Cannot Replace Proof In Money Transactions; Cogent Evidence Essential: Delhi High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Trusted Relationships Cannot Replace Proof In Money Transactions; Cogent Evidence Essential: Delhi High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers