Madhya Pradesh High Court
Layeek Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 April, 2017
MCRC-4473-2017
(MOH. AKHATAR Vs KUMARI MEHVISH RAMAN ANWAR)
25-04-2017
Shri Manish Datt, senior counsel with Shri Pawan Gujar, counsel and Shri Z.M. Shah, counsel for their respective applicants.
Shri R.K. Tripathi, counsel for the complainant. These are the first applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C filed by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail.
Applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with RT No.700/2016 registered at Police Station-Shahjahanabad, District-Bhopal for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicants contend that on the basis of a private complaint the Court has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the IPC.
As stated, Mohd. Anwar purchased a property admeasuring 506.15 sq. ft. in his name and the property admeasuring 1961 sq. ft. was purchased in the name of Mohd. Akhtar. By joining both these properties 9 flats and 11 shops were constructed. During the life time of Mohd. Anwar two registered power of attorneies were executed, those were dated 12th and 13th , March of 2014, one is in respect of a flat and the other is in respect of a shop. Power of attorney holder (Mohd. Layeek) executed a sale deed on 22.05.2014 in the name of Dr. Farukh Abdullah. However, alleging that the power of attorney is not in full sense and execution of the sale deed by the power of attorney holder as forged, complaint has been filed by Ku. Mehvish Raman Anwar who is the daughter of the fourth wife of Mohd. Anwar against other family members who were sons of earlier three wive and one of them Mohd. Akhtar is the holder of the major part of the land purchased in the year 1996.
On perusal of the private complaint prima facie it reveals that in place of signature, thumb impression of Mohd. Anwar is there. It is not a case of the complainant that the thumb impression of Mohd. Anwar is forged. However, if sale deed has been executed on the basis of the registered power of attorney which was executed by the Mohd. Anwar putting his thumb impression, it cannot be said to be forged one and it is merely a civil litigation to which the complainant is having a liberty to file the civil suit.
It is to further observed here that out of the total piece of land complainant may have registered share as per Mohammedan Law, how much share would get by the daughter of the fourth wife is an issue which is to be decided by the Civil Court, however, on the basis of her complaint registering an offence without having any allegation of forgery and cheating is not justifiable. In that view of the matter, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case wherein applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it proper to grant anticipatory bail to applicants.
Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicants Mohd. Akhatar and Layeek Khan shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.30,000/- (each) with a separate surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. Applicants are directed to join the investigation immediately and fully cooperate with the investigating agency and the trial. Conditions of Section 438(2) shall apply on the applicants during currency of bail.
Certified copy as per rules.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE