Court-Ordered FIR Revives Varanasi Buyer’s ₹9.90 Lakh Plot Complaint

Cantt police have registered an FIR on the direction of the chief judicial magistrate after a Varanasi woman alleged that she paid ₹9.90 lakh for a residential plot, completed registration and still did not receive physical possession. The complaint names Shine City Properties Private Limited, authorised representative Aitul Rashid and other unidentified people.

Complainant Pallavi Singh of Kadipur, Tarna, told the court that she entered an agreement through the company’s Varanasi office on February 18, 2017, for a plot in Sector 2 at Rajatalab. She alleged that representatives promised a developed colony and that she paid the amount in instalments through cheques, bank transfers and other banking channels.

According to her application, the plot was registered at the Gangapur sub-registrar’s office on January 18, 2018. Registration, however, did not translate into possession on the ground. Singh alleged that repeated visits produced delays, that the land shown to her was not genuine and that documents had been manipulated. She also accused the respondents of threatening her when she continued to demand possession.

These are allegations, not findings. The investigation must establish which parcel was sold, whether the seller held valid title, how it was described in the sale deed and why possession was not delivered. A property dispute may involve civil questions, criminal conduct or both; a delayed project alone does not prove cheating from the beginning.

The payment trail should be one of the clearest parts of the case. Bank records can show when money moved and who received it. Investigators should also secure the original sale documents, land records, layout approvals, company communications and any site-allotment material before accounts or offices change further.

Singh said she first approached police on May 2 and sent representations to the police commissioner and other officials on May 16. After no action, she moved the CJM under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Cantt station house officer Rajkishore Pandey confirmed that the FIR had been registered and the matter was being investigated.

The route to an FIR is itself significant. Citizens should not have to treat a magistrate’s direction as the normal first step for a document-heavy complaint. Police may need preliminary verification, but they should communicate what is being examined and why, especially when the complainant presents bank transfers and a registered deed.

For buyers, the case is another reminder to verify title, approved layout, encumbrances and the seller’s authority independently before paying. Registration records a transaction; it does not guarantee that the promised plot exists in the described condition or that possession will be trouble-free.

The new FIR gives investigators a formal framework to test Pallavi Singh’s account. It does not decide the dispute. The next credible update should come from documents—land maps, payment records and the chain of title—not from louder claims by either side.