Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:612
1 MCRC-653-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 9 th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 653 of 2025
ANIL JAIN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Abhay Saraswat, Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Apoorv Joshi, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Sanjay Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent [OBJ].
ORDER
The first bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.636/2024 registered at Police Station Madhavnagar, District Ujjain(M.P.) for offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
As per the case of prosecution, Anupam Chaturvedi submitted a written complaint to SHO of PS Madhavnagar, District Ujjain(M.P.) dated 05.12.2024 inter alia alleging criminal conspiracy, forgery and cheating regarding execution of illegal sale-deed. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant Anupam Chaturvedi and his wife Sangeeta Chaturvedi had purchased land comprised in Survey Nos.3996, 3997 and 3998 area 1.00 hectare at Ujjain. After execution of the sale-deed, the possession on land Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 1/9/2025 7:40:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:612 2 MCRC-653-2025 was transferred to them. The United Church of Nine Northern India Trust Association, Mumbai (for brevity "UCNITA) had challenged the mutation in favour of the complainant before S.D.M. Ujjain, Additional Commissioner, Ujjain and the Revenue Board, but lost at all the Courts. Thereafter, UCNITA through its Managing Director Prem Masih filed a Civil Suit No.23/2003 for declaration of title assailing the sale-deed executed in favour of the complainant and his wife, but the trial Court dismissed the civil suit vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.2005, holding the sale-deed binding on UCNITA. During pendency of the suit, other sale-deeds executed in favour of Shrikant Visham Payan, Neeta Arora, Dilip Rajaram and Anjali Housing Society were also filed. These sale-deeds were also declared binding on UCNITA. The complainant had purchased other land and house comprised in Survey Nos.3996, 3997 and 3998 from Shrikant Visham Payan, Neeta Arora, Dilip Rajaram and others in the year 2002. Later, transferred the entire property to Akshay Aankansha Mega Estate Pvt. Ltd. Company by registered sale-deed.
It is further stated in the complaint that UCNITA, its office bearers and Managing Director Prem Masih, were well aware of the sale transaction and the outcome litigation against the association. Still, in order to cause wrongful loss to the complainant, conspired with Anil Jain, Manish Sogani, Shankar Khandelwal and others and executed a forged sale-deed in favour of Shankar Khandelwal and Silver Coin Company through Director(s) Anil Jain and Manish Sogani. The sale-deed in favour of Silver Coin Company and Shankar Khandelwal were executed on the basis of a forged authority letter.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 1/9/2025 7:40:50 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:612 3 MCRC-653-2025 This sale-deed was executed for an amount of Rs.65 Lacs only against the valuation of Rs.10.50 Crores. Only amount of Rs.65 Lacs amount was paid in the account of UCNITA. No amount was paid to any other persons. All the accused, in conspiracy, evaded income tax and other duties payable to the Government. Therefore, appropriate action be taken against Prem Masih, Anil Jain and other accused with regard to cheating and forgery of the property belonging to the applicants.
The complaint was enquired into.The PS Madhavnagar registered FIR at Crime No.636/2024 for offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC against Prem Masih, Anil Jain and their associates. During investigation, it was revealed that Prem Masih, in his written statement filed before the Court of District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Suit No.204/24 had specifically averred and verified on affidavit that he has never executed any authority letter in favour of Aashish George authorising him to execute sale-deed in favour of M/s. Silvercoin Realcon Private Limited, therefore, prosecution for offence punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC is added. Relevant seizures have been made. Investigation is underway. The applicants are apprehending arrest in the matter.
Learned counsel for the applicant in addition to the grounds mentioned in the application submits that the applicants are bonafide purchasers. The UCNITA through its authorised person Aashish George Sahal executed a registered sale-deed dated 20.11.2017 in favour of the applicants. The applicants purchased the land comprised in the sale-deed after publication of notice inviting objection. The mutation of land was granted in favour of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 1/9/2025 7:40:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:612 4 MCRC-653-2025 applicants. There was no intention to cheat. The applicants were not aware of previous litigations. There are multiple civil suits pending between various parties relating to the land in dispute. The allegations are predominantly civil in nature. The applicants are ready to cooperate in the investigation. The applicants are business person. There is no likelihood of their absconsion leaving their family, home and business. Applicants are ready to co-operate in the investigation. Therefore, applicants may be extended benefit of anticipatory bail.
Per Contra learned counsel for the State, ably assisted by the learned counsel for the objector opposes the application and submits that despite loosing the civil suits for declaration of tile and failed attempt to assail the sale-deed(s) executed in favour of the complainant, the office bearers of UCNITA in conspiracy with applicant Anil Jain and Manish Sogani deliberately executed the sale deed dated on 20.11.2017 to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and grab his property. The intention to cheat from very inception is apparent as only Rs.65 Lacs was paid to UCNITA. Rest of the amount was proposed to be paid to the encroachers, occupants and possession holders as per the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), as stated in the sale-deed itself, but no such payment was ever made. It goes to show that the applicants were well aware of the previous litigation and they were in conspiracy with the office bearers of UCNITA . The alleged offence is prima facie made out against the applicants. Therefore, they may not be extended benefit of anticipatory bail.
In reply, learned counsel for the applicants contends that the entire transaction with regard to payment of consideration amount was revealed in Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 1/9/2025 7:40:50 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:612 5 MCRC-653-2025 the sale-deed as well as in the particulars submitted with the ED while enquiry into tax evasion in the matter. Therefore, no inference can be drawn against the applicants with regard to intention to cheat.
Heard rival contentions of both the parties. Perused the case diary. The overall circumstances appearing from the material on the record, specially, the sale-deed in question reveals prima facie fraudulent intention on part of the applicants. It is apparent that the applicants knowing full well that it is a disputed property, had purchased it. The basic document with regard to validity of the sale-deed i.e. the authorization in favour of Aashish George Sahal was found to be prima facie forged in view of the reply of Managing Director, Prem Masih given on affidavit before District Judge, Ujjain. Therefore, the sale transaction in question prima facie suffers from elements of forgery and cheating. Thus, it is not a civil dispute simplicitor. The investigation is at initial stage. The complexity of the applicants is prima facie made out. Their custodial interrogation would be required for further investigation. They were not available for interrogation. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.
Consequently, the application is dismissed.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE pn Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 1/9/2025 7:40:50 PM