Bal Krishna Garodia vs State of Haryana

Alok Singh, J.—This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 63 dated 8.3.2011, under Sections 420/406 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari.

As per the FIR complainant has entered into agreement to sell to purchase the plot No. 20 with the accused. Accused has handed over possession to the complainant in part performance of the contract on 4.10.2009 itself after receiving earnest money/advance of Rs. 2,41,00,000/-. Sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.2.2010. Instead of executing sale deed in favour of the complainant accused has executed sale deed in favour of third person depriving the complainant from the property agreed to be sold, therefore, complainant felt cheated.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that only case against the Petitioner is that Petitioner has allegedly entered into agreement to sell his property in favour of the complainant but he is not executing the sale deed despite of taking Rs. 2,41,00,000/- as earnest money. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further stated that even if the Petitioner is not performing his part of the contract, only suit for specific performance would lie and criminal action has been initiated wrongly and illegally. Learned Counsel further states that complainant, who is property dealer by profession wants to grab property of the Petitioner by pressurizing the Petitioner through police. As per leaned counsel for the Petitioner although the complainant is stated to have issued two cheques bearing No. 592056 for Rs. 1,20,00,000/- and No. 592057 for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- dated 1.10.2009 drawn on United Commercial Bank, Krishan Nagar, Delhi in lieu whereof possession is said to have been delivered to the complainant, the consideration of the said cheques has never passed on to the Petitioner. What is yet more stunning is the fact that the said cheques were never issued by the Bank to the complainant against his account, neither the complainant ever had so much money his account so as to honor the said cheques. The account statement of complainant V.K. Govil from 1.10.2009 to 22.7.2010 reveals that the maximum amount in his account was about Rs. 7 lacs; the complainant had earlier also made a similar complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rewari on 22.6.2010 which was forwarded to the Economic Cell, Rewari for necessary action. The said complaint was duly inquired into by the Economic Cell, Rewari. The enquiry conducted by the Economic Cell found that the cheques allegedly given by complainant V.K. Govil to the Petitioner had not been issued by the Bank against the said account. It was further reported that V.K. Govil never had Rs. 2,20,00,000/- in his account and so there is no question of payment of the said amount. It was thus reported that no truth was found in the allegations. It was not a case where cognizance could be taken and the parties could take recourse to civil remedy; the documents pertaining to agreement to sell and receipts have been forged by complainant V.K. Govil. The Petitioner is also pursuing his remedy u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Kakardooma Courts Delhi, wherein status report has been filed by the police and the same is pending consideration. However, the factual aspect of the case is that complainant V.K. Govil who is a property dealer, contacted the Petitioner and promised to find a suitable buyer for the property which the Petitioner was willing to sell. When he could not find any buyer and the Petitioner found another buyer, which was intimated to the complainant, the complainant started threatening the Petitioner with dire consequences in case he entered into an agreement to sell the said property with a 3rd party. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the misconduct of the complainant, made it clear to the complainant that he did not wish to deal with such a property dealer at all.

From the perusal of the record, it reveals that Petitioner is contending that alleged agreement to sell is fabricated and manufactured by the complainant and complainant property dealer was having no financial capacity to pay Rs. 2,41,00,000/- to the Petitioner nor was having so much heavy amount in his account.

Petitioner contends that complaint u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. is pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Kakardooma Courts, Delhi. At the other hand complainant property dealer is alleging that Petitioner accused has failed to perform his part of the contract by executing the sale deed in favour of the complainant property dealer.

In the opinion of this Court, from the bare perusal of the FIR in question, no case is made out against the Petitioner for an offence punishable under Sections 420/406 Indian Penal Code. If, as per the complainant property dealer, Petitioner has failed to honour the agreement to sell then complainant has legal remedy to file civil suit for the enforcement of the agreement to sell in question which is totally denied by the accused Petitioner. Complainant ought to have filed suit for specific performance by paying court fee thereon. Invocation of criminal action to avoid payment of court fee and to pressurize the vendor through police should not be encouraged. In the present case, invocation of criminal forum seems to be abuse of process of law.

Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is allowed. However, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the Petitioner, he shall be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and one surety of Rs. 20,000/- to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:

(i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) that he shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any per-son acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him fro disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.