Delhi High Court
Hira Singh Rawat vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 February, 2011
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
Bench: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 11th February, 2011
Date of Order: 25th February, 2011
+Bail Appln 1860 of 2010
%
25.02.2011
HIRA SINGH RAWAT ... Petitioner
Through: Mr Munish Kr. Sharma, Advocate
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Addl. PP
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. This application for anticipatory bail has been made by the applicant who is involved in a case under Section 420/380/34 IPC. Complainant in this case is Poonam Sodi W/o Shri Pyare Lal. She was a young uneducated woman. She married an old person, who was more than 60 years older to her, in order to look after him and his children. She alleged that accused exploited this situation and started coming to her house and developed physical relations with her. He continued exploiting her sexually and also extracted money from her. He took away ATM card of her husband and withdrew money and thereafter he got her husband's property transferred in her name under pressure and then got her husband's property transferred in his own name. No consideration was paid to her for the transfer. She Bail Appln. 1860 of 2010 Page 1 of 3 realized this when accused asked her to vacate the premises telling her that she was a tenant there. The complaint of complainant gives complete account of her financial and sexual exploitation.
2. The contention of the applicant is that he is a genuine purchaser of the property and entire story has been cooked up by the complainant to wriggle out of the genuine sale deed.
3. I have perused the Sale Deed, copy of which has been placed on record. A perusal of the sale-deed would show that sale consideration shown in the sale deed was ` 7,70,000/- and Corporation Tax and Stamp Duty was ` 46,200/-. Thus, the total money allegedly paid by the accused was ` 8,16,200/- . The entire payment is alleged to have been made in cash to the complainant. The applicant/accused has placed on record a salary certificate showing that he is working as Driver with Deepak Tourist Bus Service at a monthly salary of ` 10,000/- from 1st November, 2010. There is nothing on record to show that he was in service prior to 1st November, 2010. He is a married man and it is unimaginable that a person with ` 10,000/- as monthly salary, having wife and children, would have more than ` 8.00 lakh in cash with him. No source of this money has been explained by the accused. Complainant's averment that she was paid nothing as sale consideration and she was deceived by the accused seems to be quite probable. Another aspect of the Sale-Deed is that the title deed in favour of the complainant, which also was got executed by the accused to transfer property from her husband to her, is based on a notarized Power of Attorney. It is settled law that in order to transfer a property on the basis of a Power of Attorney, the Bail Appln. 1860 of 2010 Page 2 of 3 Power of Attorney itself must be a registered Power of Attorney and an unregistered Power of Attorney does not entitle Power of Attorney holder to transfer the property. A Power of Attorney giving power to sell is as good as a conveyance deed and under Registration Act it is necessary that if a document transfers property of more than ` 100/-, it must be registered. Thus the sale deed in favour of Jyoti Bist i.e. complainant, which she alleged was got manipulated by the accused, itself was a nonest Sale Deed and sale in favour of the applicant based on the basis of nonest document could not be held valid. The case has to be investigated from two aspects, one, wherefrom the entire sale consideration, allegedly paid in cash, was generated by the accused and second, how was a sale deed in favour of the complainant itself was registered on the basis of a notarized Power of Attorney at Sub Registrar's office.
4. I find that it is not a case where anticipatory bail should be granted to accused who seems to have conspired along with other accused persons to deprive the complainant of her property. The custodial interrogation would be necessary. The application is dismissed.
FEBRUARY 25, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm
Bail Appln. 1860 of 2010 Page 3 of 3