Srinagar, Aug 02, After shutting down a 17 -year -long legal battle, the city’s judge Srinagar, Abdul Bari court in 2008 blamed two persons for cheating a foreign national of 34 lakhs in a carefully employed property scam.
Guilty person – Mukhtar Ahmed Guru and Nazir Ahmed Guru, son of Gulla Guru and residents of Abi Karpora, Nehru Park, Dalagate, Srinagar – a foreign woman were found to be misleading for a fake property transactions.
The case has arisen from a complaint lodged by foreign national, who alleged that he had paid of 34 lakhs to Mukhtar Ahmed Guru for the purchase of a house and land in Gulab Bagh area of Srinagar. The transaction was done under false assurance that he could become a co-owner of the property. However, Mukhtar Ahmed Guru had bought property in his name, hiding that foreign nationals have been stopped from owning real estate in the region.
According to the details of the case, the complainant arrived in India in the early 1990s and was living in Goa when she met Mukhtar in 2005. His relationship gradually developed in a domestic partnership, which was similar to husband and wife. Exploiting this bond of the trust, Mukhtar manipulated to invest his savings in the property deal.
The crime branch of Kashmir lodged an FIR on 26 June 2010, and on August 24, 2010 filed a charge sheet, establishing that the accused deliberately cheated the complainant. The investigation confirmed that foreign women were unaware of the legal ban on ownership of property by non-citizens and misled to believe that she was a property co-owner.
For a time, she lived with Mukhtar in the house in Gulab Bagh, believing in good belief that the property was jointly owned, only later to find out that she had no legal claim and was cheated.
After years of legal proceedings, the court gave its verdict, in which Mukhtar Ahmed Guru was convicted for cheating under Section 420 of Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), and sentenced him to two years simple imprisonment with a fine of ₹ 5,000. Nazir Ahmed Guru, found guilty of abolition under section 109 read with 420 RPCs, was found only punished – two years simple imprisonment and ₹ 5,000 fine.
In a fast -paced words, the court described the act as a “trust calculation of the trust”, a weak and without thinking -with the only intention of cheating a foreign woman.
The court further directed that in the event of failure to pay the fine, the culprits would have to undergo an additional six months of simple imprisonment. Both sentences are for running concurrently.
The prosecution in the case was depicted by Additional Public Prosecutor Vikas Kumar.