Delhi High Court - Orders
Interim Protection) Raj Kumar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 5 March, 2021
Author: Rajnish Bhatnagar
Bench: Rajnish Bhatnagar
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 4214/2020 and Crl.M.A. No. 18045/2020 (for
interim protection)
RAJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.Sunil and Mr. Akash Ojha,
Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for the State
with Inspector Surender Kumar.
Mr. K.Bhardwaj and Mr. Ajay,
Advocates for the complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
ORDER
% 05.03.2021
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 273/2020 under Sections 420/468/471/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Kanjhawala.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has purchased a property from the complainant and one Smt. Anso Devi, who were the owners and occupiers of the property in question and in that regard an agreement to sell and purchase was executed between the parties.
3. It is submitted that later on it was found that the land in question was the subject matter of Appeal No.42/DC/North West/2016 and due to this complaint was given by the petitioner to SHO and DCP concerned. It is further submitted that the original Agreements to Sell dated 30.07.2018 and 29.09.2018 were lost and in that regard DD No. 10PP dated 26.06.2019 was registered at Police Post Tis Hazari.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has also filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and has also filed a suit for recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- against the complainant and Smt. Anso Devi. It is further submitted that it is the complainant who has got issued a legal notice dated 29.11.2018 through Sh. R.K.Sharma, Advocate, thereby cancelling the Agreement to Sell and Purchase dated 29.09.2018 and seeking return of original agreement to sell and purchase. It is further submitted that the said notice issued by the complainant was duly replied by the petitioner vide reply dated 02.04.2019 which was sent to Sh.R.K.Sharma, Advocate. He has further submitted that rather it is the petitioner who has been cheated by the complainant and not the other way around. The petitioner has also relied upon the ATR dated 02.09.2019 filed by the concerned Sub-Inspector in complaint case filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
5. State has filed the status report and the complainant has also filed the written synopsis through his counsel.
6. Learned APP for the State has submitted that allegations against the applicant are grave and serious in nature. It is further submitted that the petitioner is involved in similar types of cases since 2006. It is further submitted that notice alleged to have been issued by Sh.R.K. Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of the complainant to the petitioner and one Sh.Abhilakh Singh was never got issued under the instructions of the complainant and in that regard complainant has also filed a complaint against Sh. R.K.Sharma, Advocate before the Bar Council of India.
7. It is further submitted by learned APP for the State that the petitioner has falsely filed a report with regard to loss of original documents and this contention of the petitioner is contrary to the reply dated 02.04.2019 sent on behalf of the petitioner to the alleged notice dated 29.11.2018 issued by the complainant.
8. A perusal of this reply dated 02.04.2019 shows that the original document being Agreement to Sell and Purchase (Bayana) dated 29.09.2018 in original has already been handed over to the third party but the report of loss of this document was lodged on 22.06.2019, which clearly shows that when the reply dated 02.04.2019 was got issued Agreement to Sell and Purchase (Bayana) dated 29.09.2018 No. IN-DL84689442551151Q was already handed over to the third party, then there was no question of this document being lost on 22.06.2019 for which DD No. 10PP was got registered. This shows the falsehood of the petitioner. As per the photocopy of the relevant documents which were obtained from the complainant, they were found to be different and many discrepancies appeared between the documents of the complainant and the alleged documents of petitioner in respect of the same property in question. On examination of said documents of the complainant and the petitioner during investigation, the following facts have emerged:
"1. Photocopies of agreement to Sell and Purchase (Bayana) vide e-Stamp Paper bearing regn. Certificate No. IN- DL84669142551151Q dated 29.09.2018 attached with the complaint lodged by Abhilakh Singh and Raj Kumar dated 09.04.2019 with police have signatures and thumb impression of Arun Khanna, Anso Devi, Abhilakh Singh and Raj Kumar and Parmod Kumar sign is appearing as witness.
2. While on the photocopies of agreement to Sell and Purchase (Bayana)/ stamp papers bearing regn. Certificate No. IN- DL84669142551151Q dated 29.09.2018 attached with the complaint u/s 156(iii) Cr.P.C. lodged in Hon'ble Court by Abhilakh Singh and Raj Kumar, thumb impressions of Arun Khanna, Anso Devi and Raj Kumarare missing it has only signatures. Apart from it stamp of Notary is affixed on it (which do not bear sign of Notary and other details) and name of Parmod Kumar is missing in witness column. Which are contradictory.
3. While on the photocopies of agreement to Sell and Purchase (Bayana)/e-stamp papers bearing regn. Certificate No. IN- DL84669142551151Q dated 29.09.2018 attached with the complaint u/s 156(iii) Cr.P.C. lodged in Hon'ble Court of Abhilakh Singh and Raj Kumar, thumb impressions of signatures. Apart from it stamp of Notary is affixed on it (which do not bear sign of Notary and other details) and name of Parmod Kumar is missing in witness column which are contradictory.
4. While on the photocopies of agreement to Sell and Purchase (Bayana)/e- stamp papers bearing regn. Certificate No. IN-DL 84669142551151Q dated 29.09.2018 attached with the Civil Suit before Hon'ble Civil Judge by AbhilakhSingh and Raj Kumar, the signatures as well as thumb impressions of Arun Khanna, Anso Devi, AbhilakhSingh and Raj Kumar, the signatures as well as thumb are missing it has only signatures of Arun Khanna, Smt. Anso Devi and Raj Kumar on last page.
5. Another agreement to Sell and Purchase (Bayana)/ e-stamp papers bearing regn. Certificate No. IN-DL 58012783178206Q dated 30.07.2018 between Abhilakh and Arun Khanna in c/w property bearing Khasra No.92/6 (4-16) and 93/10/2(2-01) was prepared to implicate the applicant in false case.
6. One more agreement to Sell and Purchase (Bayana)/e-stamp papers bearing regn. Certificate No. IN-DL58014592681557Q dated 30.07.2018 between Arun Khanna and Raj Kumar in c/w property bearing Khasra No.92/6 (4-16) and 93/10/2(2-01) was also prepared with same motive.
7. In addition to the above, as per copy legal notice sent by alleged advocate Sh GS Sharma dated 02.04.2019 to alleged advocate Sh RK Sharma regarding the agreement, it has been stated in it 'that my client under legal obligation to go with the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement as both the parties have put their thumb impressions' which again reconfirms that the stamp paper was having thumb impression.
8. The copy of receipt which is part of the Agreement to Sell and Purchase (Bayana) dated 30.07.2018 executed between Abhilakh and Arun Khanna etc. w.r.t property bearing Khasra No. 92/6 (4-16) and 93/10/2 (2-01) attached with application given to police and another receipt filed by Abhilakh in court in c/w payment of the same property are completely different, apart from the number of witnesses, the text of the receipt and font is different."
9. In view of the aforesaid, the allegations against the petitioner being serious in nature, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the recovery of the documents and also to ascertain the manner in which the alleged forged documents were prepared. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that all the evidence in the case is documentary in nature, therefore, no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. I find no force in this submission of learned counsel. For the sake of repetition, looking into the condition of the petitioner that he is involved in similar types of five other cases and also that it has to be ascertained as to how these documents were prepared and forged, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J MARCH 5, 2021/AK