Aditya Panchariya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Heard. Perused the case diary.

This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Applicant - Aditya Panchariya S/o Hari Prasad Panchariya is implicated in Crime No.08/2019 registered at Police Station - Khajrana, District Indore for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC and he is in custody since 11.02.2019.

As per the prosecution case, complainant Rajesh Khandelwal is the President of Sanjana Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore and as per the complainant, this society is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No.176/5 rakba 0.369 hectare. This land was given to R. R. Leasing Company and R. R. Leasing Company gave the land to Standard Products Company on rent for a period of 5 years from 01.11.2013 to 31.10.2018. During this period, tenant had not paid part of the rent and after completion of lease period, notice was given to Standard Products Company for vacating the land. A civil suit was thereafter instituted by R. R. Leasing Company against Standard Products Company and later on, came to the knowledge of the complainant that accused persons are trying to sell the said land and they have demonstrated themselves to be owner of the land. Consequently, case has been registered against the applicant.

In the bail application, it has been stated that due to financial hardship, the applicant could not run the restaurant and hence could not pay the rent on time.

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that there is no foul play on the part of the applicant to record his name as owner. Infact, this was a mistake, which was rectified by the applicant himself. Infact the error was caused when his premises were visited by the Municipal Authorities and tax was demanded, then he came forward to pay the tax otherwise, premises would have been got vacated by the Municipal Authorities and he bonafidely has shown himself as liable to pay the property tax and the only intention behind doing so was to avoid coercive action against him for vacating the premises. In the process, atmost, preparation to commit an offence can be assumed. There was no intention on the part of the applicant to sell the premises to another person by showing himself to be the owner. The offence of cheating and forgery are not made out as per the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant.

Per contra, it was vehemently argued by the counsel for the State as well as the counsel for the complainant that the manner in which the applicant filled up the form of property tax itself shows that he wanted to project himself to be the owner malafidely. He has also drawn attention to the fact that there was infact a conspiracy between the applicant and the Municipal Authorities as the cheques which were drawn by the applicant were dishonoured and the Municipal Authorities sat quite for two years, which shows that the Municipal Authorities were in hand and glove with the applicant. It has been stated that the applicant has not come clean in the matter and has shown himself to be the owner with a purpose to part with the property to some other person.

Learned counsel for the complainant has filed number of documents to support the fact that the applicant had purposely with malafide intentions had shown himself to be owner of the land.

Perusal of such documents show that the applicant has described himself to be the owner alongwith Sanjana Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit and has also drawn cheques in favour of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Indore. He has also brought attention of this Court towards a letter of the Revenue Officer, Municipal Corporation written to Sanjana Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit in which it has been stated that Aditya Panchariya (applicant) had filled up his assessment form and had also intimated that the applicant himself had purchased premises from Sanjana Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit. This letter is dated 08.02.2019.

However, on the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has stated that in eagerness to pay the municipal tax, the applicant had written his name in the column of owner and due to this mistake, he was named as the owner but when the applicant realized his mistake, he vide letter dated 01.09.2018 filed an application for making corrections before the Dy. Commissioner (Revenue), Municipal Corporation and corrections were duly made by the Dy. Commissioner removing his name.

To this, learned Public Prosecutor for the State submits that this action on the part of the applicant was not bonafide and he was constrained to file an application for making corrections when matter was reported by the complainant to the police and the police swung into action.

On perusal of the case diary and the documents submitted by both the counsels for the parties, it appears that the applicant has played truant, his action cannot be termed to be bonafide and he was constrained to file application for correction only when police swung into action after receipt of complaint.

However, there is no material on record to conclude that the applicant was trying to part with the property or that he had entered into an agreement for selling the property.

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the action on the part of the applicant would not go beyond "preparation" of committing offence and there is no material to even suggest the attempt of committing an offence. A citation of Laxmi Prasad vs. Emperor (Patna High Court) MANU/BH/0010/1922 has been filed in support. It appears that the complainant by filing complaint pre-empted the applicant from indulging in committing further improprieties.

Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting upon the merits of the case, I allow this bail application and it is directed that the applicant - Aditya Panchariya shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned JMFC/CJM for his regular appearance before him or trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed in this behalf by the Court concerned during trial. It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.

M.Cr.C. No.8299/2019 is allowed and stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.