Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chand Mohammad Mansuri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 May, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 10th OF MAY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22848 of 2022
Between:-
CHAND MOHAMMAD MANSURI S/O SHRI BABU KHAN
MANSURI , AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HEAD MASTER GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL, BINA,
RESIDENT OF MANORAMA WARD, BINA DISTT-SAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI IMTIYAZ HUSSAIN, SENIOR COUNSEL ASSISTED BY SHRI RAVI
KANT PATEL COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.BINA
DISTRICT-SAGAR(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SANTOSH YADAV, DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
(BY SHRI ABHIJEET BHOWMIK, COUNSEL FOR THE OBJECTOR)
T h is application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is first application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity "Cr.P.C").
Case Crime No. 262/2022 is registered at Police Station Bina, District Sagar for offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C.
Learned senior counsel submits that allegation on the present applicant is that he had sold 1,400 square feet of land in favour of complainant Shri Devendra Signature SAN Not Verified Purohit vide registered sale deed dated 3/12/2021. He had given possession of the Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2022.05.10 19:37:51 IST 2 land to Shri Devendra Purohit but when Shri Devendra Purohit reached on the purchased property, then he was informed by one Shri Nitesh Jain that he had purchased the said plot from the present applicant and, therefore, the F.I.R. came to be lodged on the pretext that present applicant had sold same plot to two different set of people, thus committing cheating to subsequent buyer Shri Devendra Purohit.
He further submits that the petitioner had purchased plot measuring 2400 square feet (60x40) from one Smt. Geeta Devi w/o Ganga Sharan Ojha. In this sale deed, Khasra number was wrongly mentioned as 108 in place of 109/1 and, therefore, correction deed was carried out as contained in Annexure P-2A when on 10th November, 1998, Khasra number was corrected from 108 to 109/1.
It is submitted that since Geeta Devi had sold plots to several persons. Petitioner's plot was marked as Khasra No. 109/14 measuring 60x40=2400 square feet. Rin pustika is enclosed as Annexure P-3. Thereafter, the applicant had sold 800 square feet of land in favour of Nitesh Jain measuring 20x40 square feet vide sale deed dated 6th July, 2015. It is submitted that thereafter Nitesh had purchased 200 square feet of land vide sale deed dated 15/11/2019 measuring 5x40 square feet out of survey no. 109/14.
It is submitted that thereafter remaining 1400 square feet of land was sold in favour of Shri Devendra Purohit vide impugned sale deed and possession was handed over to Shri Devendra Purohit.
Learned counsel for the objector in his turn submits that now applicant is not interested in having that plot, therefore, applicant be directed to refund Rs. 28,00,000/-.
Learned Deputy Government Advocate, on the other hand, opposes the bail 3 application.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that a complaint and simple dispute of demarcation of plot between the complainant and previous purchaser Nitesh Jain has been given a criminal colour under the incorrect legal advice tendered to the victim. As far as complainant's claim to refund is concerned, his remedy lies elsewhere and not in these proceedings.
Prima facie, I am satisfied that none of the ingredients under Section 420 of I.P.C. are made out.
There is no element of cheating and, therefore, this is a fit case to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this anticipatory bail application is allowed.
It is directed that applicant be extended benefit of anticipatory bail subject to surrendering before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from today and in case he surrenders before the Investigating Officer within the aforesaid period, then Investigating Officer shall let him on bail after accepting personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the concerned Police Station within fifteen days from today and on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in Sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) 4 JUDGE vy