Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 September, 2019
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1 MCRC-35962-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-35962-2019
(PRADEEP AGRAWAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 24-09-2019
Shri Nishant Datt, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sourabh Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the objector. Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is Second application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. as the applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.281/2017 registered at Police Station Shahpura, District-Bhopal (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC.
Earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merit vide order dated 23.07.2019 passed in the M.Cr.C. No.18682/2019.
As per the prosecution case victim Jitesh Parvani is partner in a firm called "City Builders and Investments". He had executed a registered power of attorney on 23.11.2012 for a period of one year in favour of applicant Pradeep Agarwal for the sale of 9 flats belonging to the company in Vishnu Hitech City, Bhopal. Though Pradeep Agarwal had right to execute the sale deed, he had no right to receive the consideration. It was also mentioned in the power of attorney that the power of attorney holder Pradeep Agarwal would execute the sale deed only in favour of one Shri Shishir Khare or the person nominated by him in writing. Applicant Pradeep Agarwal misused the power of attorney, therefore, victim Jitesh Parvani canceled the power of attorney on 17.7.2013. Meanwhile, co-accused Shahnawaz Khan and his mother Tanveer Fatima tried to take possession of flat Nos. B2/501 and B2/604, thereafter the victim learnt that the applicant (power of attorney holder) had executed an agreement of sale in favour of coaccused Shahnawaz Khan and his mother Tanveer Fatima purportedly on 25.2.2013 for sale of the aforesaid two flats for cumulative consideration of Rs.34 lakhs. Consequently, a first information report was lodged on 31.10.2017 against Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR Date: 25/09/2019 10:54:47 2 MCRC-35962-2019 co-accused Shahnawaz and applicant Pradeep Agarwal. During inquiry by the victim and investigation by the police, it was learnt that the agreement of sale bearing the date of 25.2.2013 was forged. The stamp papers valued at Rs. 100/- which was said to have been issued by treasury to stamp vendor Shailendra Ojha on 10th February, 2013 was in fact issued in favour of another Stamp Vendor S.K. Patil on 7.3.2013 i.e. 12 days after the date on which the agreement for sale was purportedly executed. It was further learnt that there is no Stamp Vendor in Bhopal area named Shailendra Ojha. The seal of the stamp vendor and the seal of treasury on the Stamp Paper were also forged. Thus the co-accused Shahnawaz had entered into a criminal conspiracy with applicant (power of attorney holder Pradeep Aggarwal) to defraud M/s City Builders and Investment and had executed a forged agreement for sale.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence. The applicant executed the agreement on the basis of power of attorney executed by the applicant in his favour. The power of attorney was valid for a period of one year. Thus, even on 07/3/2017, on which the stamp is said to have been issued, the power of attorney was valid. It was not cancelled till 17/7/2013. In paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the powers of attorney it has been specifically mentioned that the flats could be transferred only in favour of Shishir Khare or the person nominated by him in writing. Written consent of Shishir Khare for transfer of the flats in favour of co-accused Shahnawaj Khan and his mother was obtained by the applicant from Shishir Khare and the stamp paper on which the agreement of sale was executed was also provided by the Shishir Khare to applicant. The applicant had no knowledge that the stamp paper had been forged. The applicant earlier filed Civil Suit No.109 B/2012 while he lodged complaint in year 2017 only for extracting money from the applicant. The alleged agreement was executed by the applicant by his signature, so it cannot be said that the said agreement was forged, so offence Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR Date: 25/09/2019 10:54:47 3 MCRC-35962-2019 under Section 467, 468, 471 of IPC was not made out. Applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial. In the event of arrest, his reputation will be ruined. Under these circumstances, applicant prays for anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the State as well as objector opposed the prayer and submitted that from the investigation report it is clear that the stamp paper in which sale agreement was executed by the applicant was forged and the seal of treasury engross on that stamp was also forged which clearly shows that the applicant executed forged agreement on a forged stamp paper. From the investigation report, it appears that the stamp paper on which agreement of sale was executed by the applicant was issued by the treasury on 7.3.2013, therefore, it could not have been used on 25.2.2013. Thus, there is no denying the fact that the agreement for sale was anti-dated and it was not executed on 25.2.2013, as mentioned in the agreement. In theses circumstances, it cannot be said as to when the agreement of sale was actually executed. Since it is anti dated, it is possible that the agreement could have been executed after revocation of power of attorney by the complainant. In these circumstances, there can be no doubt that the applicant had intentionally signed an anti-dated document and also embezzled the amount. The applicant earlier had filed M.Cr.C.No.27003/2017 for quashing of F.I.R. of this case and also prays for interim protection but this Court rejected applicant'™s prayer vide order dated 05/01/2018 till then applicant is still absconding, so he should not be released on anticipatory bail.
Earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merit vide order dated 23.07.2019 passed in the M.Cr.C. No.18682/2019, since then there has been no change in circumstances.
So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the contention of learned counsel for the objector and learned counsel for the State that the applicant is still absconding, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR Date: 25/09/2019 10:54:474 MCRC-35962-2019 Hence, this application is rejected.
(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE mn Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR Date: 25/09/2019 10:54:47