Krishna Devi vs State of Haryana

CRM No.17641 of 2017

Heard.

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Annexures R-1 to R-5 are taken on record.

CRM-M-17087 of 2017

This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the

petitioner in FIR No.122/2017 dated 24.02.2017, under Sections 406,

420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station

Palam Vihar, District Gurugram.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, in support of the

petition, vehemently argued that the custody of the petitioner is not at

all necessary. According to him, this Court had issued an interim order

granting ad interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner, on 15.05.2017

and the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the Investigating Officer

and as such, there is no need to refuse the relief of anticipatory bail to

the petitioner. Learned Senior counsel submits that the petitioner did

not receive the amount as alleged, but an amount of Rs. 22 lakhs was

received from Anil Napgal and the rest was from the complainant-

Pankaj Sharma. Therefore, complainant-Pankaj Sharma was not

entitled to the entire amount. Learned Senior counsel then submits

that the dispute in question, at the most, is of civil nature and that is

the another reason why ad interim order deserves to be confirmed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State as well

as complainant vehemently oppose the petition. Learned counsel for

the complainant invited my attention to the documents filed in CRM

No.17641 of 2017 and submits that the petitioner received huge

amount from the complainant and there is receipt (Annexure R-2)

showing the receipt of amount of Rs. 43,48,000/- from the complainant-

Pankaj Sharma. Learned State counsel also opposed the petition for

anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submits that the allegations in the

FIR clearly show that the petitioner had definite intention to cheat the

complainant.

Heard learned counsel for rival parties at length. There is

an advance receipt (Annexure R-3) on record about the petitioner

receiving an amount of Rs. 65 lakhs and said advance receipt shows

receipt of Rs. 43 lakhs from Pankaj Sharma and Rs. 22 lakhs from Anil

Nagpal. Petitioner having received the huge amount from the

complainant-Pankaj Sharma was under an obligation to complete the

agreed transactions, but then it is clear form the record that the

petitioner did have in mind the criminal intention to misappropriate the

entire amount and thus, cheated the complainant by refusing to

complete the transactions. The submission made by learned Senior

counsel for the petitioner that the nature of the dispute is civil does not

appeal to me since there is no justification to show anywhere as to why

the transactions was not completed having accepted huge amount from

the complainant-Pankaj Sharma.

On the request made by learned Senior counsel for the

petitioner, the petition was again heard on 26.07.2017. Learned

counsel for both the parties were present and were heard.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has pointed out

referring to CRM No.17641 of 2017 filed by the complainant that

Annexure R-3 receipt itself shows that the amount of Rs. 22 lakhs was

paid by Anil Nagpal. The said amount of Rs. 22 lakhs was paid back to

Anil Nagpal and the receipt given by him is on record. Therefore, it is

established that the amount of Rs. 22 lakhs was never paid by the

complainant.

Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant contended

that Anil Nagpal is partner of the petitioner and they are in collusion

and thus, showing the factum of receipt etc. which is totally false.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner then contended

that the agreement to sell does not stipulate any time limit for

completion thereof and the petitioner would be ready to effect the sale-

deed if the complainant accepts the offer and pays the remaining

amount.

Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed

the suggestion and submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner has

raised huge loans from the Bank on the property in question and the

complainant cannot take risk of said loan liability which the petitioner

has taken from the Bank and the amount is now almost to the extent of

Rs. 2 crores. At any rate, according to the learned counsel for the

complainant, complainant would not be ready to accept the contention

about payment of Rs. 43 lakhs as the entire amount was paid in the sum

of Rs. 68 lakhs.

Looking to the above contentions and upon perusal of the

documents referred to me in the main petition as well as in CRM

No.17641 of 2017, I find that it is not in dispute that the amount atleast

Rs. 43 lakhs was received from the complainant. In fact, learned Senior

counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that the amount was so

received. But then, the petitioner having mortgaged the entire property

and having obtained huge loan, it cannot lie in the mouth of the

petitioner that the complainant should again pay and complete the

transactions. All that was done by the petitioner on his own and the

suggestion of the petitioner that the complainant should clear the loans

on the property and obtain the sale-deed, is nothing but showing a

carrot. The complainant cannot be allowed to be again put in the trap

as suggested by the petitioner. The question whether the petitioner has

received Rs. 68 lakhs or Rs. 43 lakhs from the complainant cannot be gone

into nor any adjudication is possible. At any rate, since the petitioner

has admittedly received huge amount from the complainant, no preface

can be put on his action of fraudulent nature.

In the wake of the fraudulent nature of the transactions

committed by the petitioner, there is prima-facie case made out against

her and the offence being serious, I do not think, the relief of

anticipatory bail should be extended to the petitioner.

In that view of the matter, this petition stands dismissed.

Interim order dated 15.05.2017 granting ad interim anticipatory bail to

the petitioner stands vacated.