Delhi High Court - Orders
Meenu Malik vs State & Anr on 21 December, 2020
Author: Suresh Kumar Kait
Bench: Suresh Kumar Kait
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2357/2020
MEENU MALIK ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Hemant Kumar, Adv.
versus
STATE & ANR. .... Respondents
Through Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State
Mr. Shivek Trehan and Mr. Pranay
Mohan Govil, Advs. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
ORDER
% 21.12.2020 The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 439 (2) for setting aside the order dated 29.10.2020 passed by learned ASJ (South East), Saket District Court and for cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2.
2. Notice issued.
3. Notice is accepted by learned APP for State on behalf of respondent No.1 and by learned counsel for accused/respondent No.2.
4. FIR has been lodged against Respondent no. 2 by Meenu Malik who is his wife. The accused and the complainant have been married for almost 24 years. The main allegation in the present FIR is that respondent No.2 had fabricated lease agreements by forging the signatures of petitioner for properties that were exclusively owned by her. Respondent No.2, without the knowledge or permission of petitioner, entered into lease agreements for CRL.M.C. 2357/2020 Page 1 of 7 properties owned by her by forging her signatures and subsequently usurping the rent amounts so received from various tenants/lessees under such lease agreements.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that allegations against the respondent No.2 are grave in the manner and offences that have been alleged against him attract punishment to the tune of 7 years or beyond. Babla Dass Gupta (tenant) has specifically stated that he was misled by the respondent No. 2 to believe that he was the sole owner of the property and based on this false belief made him enter into the premises and also retained the rent of Rs. 12,000/- per month.
6. It is further submitted that Dibyendu Mukherjee, tenant of J-3/34, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi, has clearly stated that he used to reside at above property from April, 2018 to November, 2019 and respondent No.2 had introduced himself as the owner of the property, who also retained the rent paid by him.
7. It is also submitted that the petitioner had never allowed the respondent No.2 to retain rent or manage the properties. The said respondent in his reply dated 07.08.2020 to the concerned IO has nowhere mentioned that he was receiving rent from the property at J-3/287, Ist Floor, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi - 110019, which is exclusively owned by the Petitioner. It is only when the statement of the tenant Babla Das Gupta who used to live at J-3/287, 1st Floor was recorded by the IO and wherein Babla Das Gupta stated that he used to reside at the above property from June, 2016 to January, 2020 and during this time he paid the rent of Rs. 12,000/- per month in cash to respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 changed his version before the IO and admitted that he used to realise the rent from CRL.M.C. 2357/2020 Page 2 of 7 Babla Das Gupta for the property which is exclusively owned by the petitioner.
8. It is also submitted that the respondent No.2 has admitted during investigation, which reflects on the Status Reports dated 09.08.2020, that he had been in possession of premises bearing number J-3/60, DDA Flats Kalkaji, which is also a premises mentioned by the petitioner in her FIR, where the respondent No.2 had been retaining rent and had installed tenants on fabricated rent agreements. The said respondent has been trying to illegally dispose of the petitioner's premises at 507 and 509, Vishal Chambers, Sector 18, Noida, which are also part of the current FIR, and the same was corroborated by Gaurav Aggarwal, representing Vishal Build Homes Pvt. Ltd., the builder of the commercial premises Vishal Chambers.
9. While concluding arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 wherein it was held that while considering grant or denial of bail, the court has to consider (1) Gravity of offence; (2) Nature of Evidence on record against the accused; (3) Likelihood of accused committing further offences; (4) Previous criminal antecedents; (5) Likelihood of accused absconding or evading process of law and (6) Larger interest of the public or the State. Keeping in view the gravity of offences and nature of evidence on record, the present petition deserves to be allowed.
10. On the other hand, counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the properties in question were acquired by the complainant in the years 2001, 2006, 2007 and 2012. No complaint pertaining to letting out her properties, without her knowledge and consent, was lodged by the complainant before CRL.M.C. 2357/2020 Page 3 of 7 initiation of matrimonial litigation between her and the accused. Even after initiation of the matrimonial litigation, no complaint alleging forgery of the lease deeds was lodged by the complainant till December 2019 and the complainant has been changing her versions.
11. Further case of respondent No.2 is that the FIR in question has been lodged by his wife and the reason for dispute between them on account of the complainant's involvement with a self-proclaimed god-man/baba, who calls himself "Yogi Ashwini". The said god-man is a fraudulent person, who has instigated the complainant to initiate litigations against the respondent No.2 and has also caused the respondent No.2's children to distance themselves from him. The present FIR also names other persons which includes his father (being co-owner of one property with the complainant) and other tenants in the complainant's owned properties.
12. Further case of the respondent No.2 is that the present FIR is nothing but a pressure tactic being employed by the complainant to arm-twist the respondent No.2 into conceding defeat and settling all pending cases between the parties. As per the FIR, it clearly depicts that the same is not only baseless, but malicious and false. The reason for filing the present FIR is on account of the complainant having failed to secure any orders for maintenance against the respondent No.2.
13. It is not in dispute that learned Family Court had already heard the parties at length on 12.06.2020, wherein it was held that the complainant is not entitled to any maintenance based on the fact that she has sufficient income and had not approached the Court with clean hands. The present FIR is a counter-blast measure by the complainant against the respondent No.2 on account of such failure to secure any maintenance.
CRL.M.C. 2357/2020 Page 4 of 714. On perusal of the FIR, the allegation against the respondent No.2 is that the respondent No.2 fabricated lease agreements by forging the signatures of petitioner/complainant for properties that were exclusively owned by her. The respondent No.2, without the knowledge or permission of complainant, entered into lease agreements for properties owned by her by forging her signatures and subsequently usurping the rent amounts so received from various tenants/lessees under such lease agreements. The complainant has neither disclosed any material particular of the fraud and forgery being alleged, nor has she disclosed or indicated any time period or dates of the alleged fraud. As per the complainant's own complaint dated 03.12.2019, the properties mentioned hereinbelow belong exclusively and/or jointly to her, and the date since which the properties have remained in the ownership of the complainant and the said properties are as under:
S.No. Property Details Ownership Date of
Acquisition
1 15. 507 and 509, V Floor, Meenu Malik 2001
P Block, Pocket A, Vishal
Chambers, Sector 18 Market,
Noida
2 J-3/17, IInd Floor, DDA Meenu Malik 30.03.2006
Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi
3 J-3/287, 1 Floor, DDA Flats, Meenu Malik 22.01.2007
Kalkaji, New Delhi.
4 J-3/60, IIIrd Floor, DDA Meenu Malik 05.09.2012
Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi. and Santosh
CRL.M.C. 2357/2020 Page 5 of 7
Kumar Malik
5 J-3/60, IV Floor, DDA Flats, Meenu Malik 05.09.2012
Kalkaji, New Delhi. and Santosh
Kumar Malik
6 J-3/24, I Floor, DDA Flats, Meenu Malik 16.05.2007
Kalkaji, New Delhi and Subodh
Malik
16. The complainant had various properties registered in her name for long periods of time. Further, for the purpose of registration of conveyance deed of the said properties, the complainant was present before the Sub- Registrar and had herself admitted that the said properties are in her ownership. Therefore, clearly the complainant was aware about the properties since inception. However, no dispute was ever raised regarding any tenancy of these properties. The present FIR was registered on a complaint dated 03.12.2019. The complaint has been filed as an afterthought and only to falsely pressurize the respondent No.2 by having him threatened with arrest.
17. After going through the impugned order dated 29.10.2020, I am of the considered view that there are claims and counter-claims with regard to the property in question and petitioner is wife of respondent No.2 and their marriage lasted for around 24 years, thereafter, some dispute arose amongst them and now allegations and counter allegations are being made by parties against each other. Therefore, at this stage, without commenting on the merit of the case, the present petition does not fall in the exceptions which are sufficient to cancel the anticipatory bail granted by the Court below.
CRL.M.C. 2357/2020 Page 6 of 718. In view of above, I find no merit to allow the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
19. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J DECEMBER 21, 2020/rk CRL.M.C. 2357/2020 Page 7 of 7