In N.G. Dev v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., 2026:DHC:3265, the Delhi High Court reiterated that allegations involving large cash transactions cannot be sustained merely on assertions of trust, friendship, or oral understanding and must be supported by cogent and credible evidence. The Court refused to interfere with concurrent orders of the Trial Court and Revisional Court which had declined to summon the accused in a complaint alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust.

The case arose out of an alleged property transaction in which the petitioner claimed to have paid substantial amounts in cash to the respondents in connection with the proposed purchase of a property. According to the petitioner, the respondents had induced him into the transaction and thereafter failed to honour their assurances, thereby committing offences under Sections 406, 420, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Magistrate dismissed the complaint after finding that the allegations were unsupported by reliable material. The Revisional Court affirmed the same. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking revival of the criminal complaint.

While dismissing the petition, the High Court emphasised that criminal proceedings involving substantial cash transactions cannot proceed in the absence of foundational evidence demonstrating the actual flow of money, source of funds, or contemporaneous documentation. The Court noted that despite the petitioner alleging payment of huge cash amounts, there was no documentary material showing withdrawal of cash, financial capacity, execution of receipts, or any written acknowledgment by the respondents.

Rejecting the plea that the transactions were based on longstanding trust between the parties, the Court observed:

“No matter how close a relationship of trust between the Petitioner and the Respondents may have been, when it comes to money transactions, it has to be corroborated by some cogent evidence.”

The Court found it particularly improbable that such substantial cash payments were allegedly made in relation to a property transaction without even verifying ownership documents or executing any formal agreement. The Court agreed with the findings of the Trial Court and Revisional Court that firstly, the Petitioner is alleged to have entered into a sale transaction without execution of any documents; and secondly, this transaction had been undertaken with Respondents, who were admittedly not the owner of the Suit property.

Expressing serious doubt over the petitioner’s version, the Court observed:

“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.”

Importantly, the Court also observed that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked merely to re-appreciate the same material already examined by the courts below unless patent perversity or abuse of process is demonstrated.

The Court held that the Trial Court and Revisional Court had rightly concluded that, in the absence of any document evidencing an agreement for purchase of the property, there was no prima facie material to establish that the alleged cash payment of ₹4 crores had in fact been made towards the proposed transaction.

Finding no illegality in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Revisional Court, the High Court dismissed the petition and refused to direct summoning of the respondents.

The ruling reinforces that criminal law cannot be invoked to give a criminal colour to doubtful, undocumented, or unsubstantiated monetary dealings, particularly large cash transactions, merely by alleging cheating or criminal breach of trust, in the absence of credible and contemporaneous evidence.

Authored By
Rajat Jain, Advocate
Email: [email protected]
Mobile No. 9953887311