Mukesh Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh

This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of anticipatory bail, who has apprehension of being arrested in connection with Crime No. 23/2019, registered at Police Station– Mowa, Pandri, Raipur District Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 420,467,468,471 read with Section 34 IPC.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.01.2019 victim Ayesha Siddiqui D/o. Md. Idris lodged a written complaint before Police Station Mowa alleging that properties bearing Khasra Nos. 886/4, 940/1 total area 1.057 hectare and khasra No. 793 area 4550 sq feet total sale consideration of Rs. 30 crores were registered in the name of joint property, subsequently the aforesaid property was received by his father in partition. It is alleged that the applicant is partner of M/s. Vindhya Vasini Firm and taking advantage of old age of her father by manipulating in the revenue records has obtained forged signature and prepared forged rin pustika of the lands and transferred the lands to his name in connivance with the some Bhu Mafiyas, thus the applicant committed offence of fraud and cheating. It is also alleged that the amount of sale consideration deposited in the account of victim/ complainant has also been misappropriated by co-accused Arif Ahmad and Abdul Gani and Aftab Siddiqui. It is further alleged that khasra Nos. 255, 260, 261, 262/2 situated at village Mowa, behind Mowa Police Station, Dubey Colony and Khasra Nos. 859, 811, 886/5, 887, 888, 889, 890, 892, 894, 886/4, 910/1, 891, 895 and 886/6 total 14 khasras area 5.486 hectare situated between BSNL Palm Bellazio & Aishwarya Wind Mill, village Mowa, Raipur, total sale consideration of the said land around 50 crores is said to have been purchased by the applicant by playing fraud with the victim. It is also alleged that the applicant in collusion with the other co-accused tried to grab the lands of the victim, therefore, he has prepared a forged rin pustika and executed an agreement to sale thus he committed fraud and the amount of sale consideration deposited in the victim’s account was also misappropriated by the applicant along with the other co-accused. It is alleged that the victim in apprehension that her father may be kidnapped or killed by the co-accused persons as her father has executed Will dated 24.11.2017 whereupon the daughter of the victim filed the written complaint before the police for action against the applicant and after investigation FIR under Sections 420,467,468,471 read with Section 34 IPC was registered against the applicant.

Learned Sr. counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He would further submit that the applicant was a Director of a Company who had constructed residential project under the name of Palm Bellazio at Mowa Raipur. The applicant was also partner of the partnership firm styled as Vindhya Vasini Developer, which is Developer, promoter and Partnership Firm. In the year 2016, one Md. Idris and Aftab Siddiqui met the Petitioner in connection with sale of land bearing Khasra No.886/4, 910/1 total area 1.057 hectare situated at Mowa, Raipur. The applicant, after satisfying with the requisite documents produced before him by Md. Idris and Aftab Siddiqui and after negotiations, the sale consideration of aforesaid two khasra number was finalized for consideration of Rs.3,85,50,500/-. After finalization of deal, Md. Idris told the Petitioner that Aftab Siddique will execute the transfer deed in his favour as he (Aftab Siddique) is his (Md. Idris's) attorney holder, but the same was refused by the applicant stating that being a builder/developer, the sale deed shall be executed only with the land owner and sale consideration would be paid by him to the land owner only by way of account payee cheque to have a clear title over the property and to avoid any future legal dispute. Thereafter, upon their agreement to the said terms, on 11.08.2016, a sale deed was executed in favour of the applicant by the land owner namely Md. Idris in respect of Kh. No.886/4 and 910/1 area 1.057 hectare and sale consideration of Rs.3,85,80,500/- was paid to land owner Md. Idris through cheques. After execution of the aforesaid sale deed dated 11.08.2016, on 19.10.2016 one Bushra Sharif made a complaint before the Registrar with the averments that the sale deed was undervalued as per the government guidelines, which were decided vide order dated 23.02.2017 (Annexure P/5) by the Collector of Stamp at Raipur holding that the valuation of the sale deed was correct and according to the Government guideline rate. Thereafter, on 29.11.2016, a complaint was made by Bushra Shareef before the Police authorities alleging therein that she is also co-owner of the property in question and Md. Idris had fraudulently sold the said property to the applicant. That apart, one complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was also filed by Bushra Shareef for registration of FIR, however, vide order dated 10.07.2017 the proceedings of the said complaint have been withdrawn by the Complainant Buishra Shareef. Thereafter, Md. Idris and Aftab once again came to the Petitioner with offer to sell some more land, to which the petitioner denied saying that there are many members in their family as also dispute among themselves, but on assurance made by Md. Idris that he will get the matter solved and it was agreed to confirm the sale deed dated 11.08.2016 by way of amendment after getting the signature of all family members. The applicant relying upon the assurance given by Md. Idris and Aftab agreed to purchase the land and sale considerations were decided to be Rs.7,42,04,500/- and Rs.2,48,56,500/- respectively on 10.03.2017, two sale deeds were executed accordingly. It was agreed by Md. Idris, an amended deed was executed on 15.03.2017 to confirm sale deed dated 11.08.2016 arraying all the family members as consenter. After execution of amended deed, the applicant applied for mutation of the firm in revenue records but surprisingly an objection with regard to Kh. No.886/4 which was part of sale deed dated 11.08.2016 was raised by Saraswati Bai before the revenue authority to be the owner of property bearing Kh. No.886/4. Upon inquiry from Md. Idris, he informed that the land bearing khasra No.886/4 belonged to his father Mohammad Yakub, who had sold the said land to Rehmat Baksh and thereafter Rehmat Baksh had sold the said land to Smt. Saraswati Bai. He would further submit that the applicant showed displeasure over the issue and assurance was given by Md. Idris to rectify his mistake and refund the amount which he had received in respect of property bearing Khasra No.886/4. Thereafter, an amendment deed dated 28.02.2018 to the previous sale deed dated 11.08.2016 deleting the Khasra No.886/4 and agreement to refund the sale consideration amount on pro-rata basis amounting to Rs.1,83,23,000/- were also executed. Further case is that on 09.01.2019, after a lapse of more than two years and four months from the date of execution of first sale deed dated 11.08.2016, Complainant filed a complaint in question wherein in addition allegations were made against other accused person. He would further submit that after one month of filing the complaint, on 09.02.2019 the applicant received a legal notice from one Ku. Shazaadi and Kumari Noor Begum stating that they and their family members have sold the properties to the applicant vide registered document dated 30.03.2017 but yet to receive part of consideration of Rs.15 Crore from the applicant, which was duly answered by the applicant stating that he had made all the payment of consideration. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner came to know about civil recovery suit of Rs.7,26,19,715/- filed by Md. Idris against Aftab Siddique. During pending of the recovery suit, Md. Idris with influence of complainant herein has filed a civil suit for declaration of title in respect of the subject property, which is pending consideration before the Civil Court at Raipur. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the allegation made in impugned FIR, prima-facie, does not make out any case so as to attract aforesaid offence against the applicant as the same are absurd and inherently improbable. According to the allegation of Complainant – Ayesha Siddiqui, daughter of Md. Idris, the dispute pertains to Khasra Nos. 255, 260, 261, 262/2 situated at village Mowa, behind Mowa Police Station, Dubey Colony and Khasra Nos. 859, 811, 886/5, 887, 888, 889, 890, 892, 894, 886/4, 910/1, 891, 895 and 886/6 situated between BSNL Palm Bellazio & Aishwarya Wind Mill, village Mowa, Raipur. He further submits that allegations have been maliciously levelled with ulterior motive to create cloud over title of the properties purchased by the applicant way back in the year 2016 and thereby extorted money from the applicant in view of the sky-rocketed escalation of prices of aforesaid property. The applicant has entered into a purely commercial real estate transaction with Md. Idris and has followed all the obligations of principle buyers beware before entering into said transaction and it was the major stipulation of the transaction that the recorded owner would execute the sale deed and consideration amount must directly go into his bank account. The allegation against the applicant is baseless as it is evident from the bank statement that amount was credited to the bank account of the applicant from the account of Md. Idris with respect to Khasra No.886/4 (For deletion of the said Khasra from the sale deed executed on 11.08.2016). Learned Sr. counsel also submits that even if the entire case is taken on its face value, the present dispute is of civil in nature for which Md. Idris has approached the competent civil Court for redressal of his grievance. The impugned FIR does not disclose commission of offence of cheating and forgery as envisaged in the provisions of Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. It has been also submitted that Md. Idris refunded the money to the applicant in respect of the land which did not belong to him as such, allegations against the applicant are false and atrocious. He would further submit that the complaint made by Bushra Sarif and the allegation levelled in the present FIR are in respect of the same land and during the course of investigation the police has sent the letter to Chief Registrar, Raipur seeking query in respect of the sale deed which was executed in favour of the applicant. He would further submit that the Sub-Registrar has stated that after following due process of law and procedure the sale deed was registered. Learned Sr. counsel for the applicant would further submit that co-accused Aftab Siddiqui, Aarif Ahmed Qureshi and Abdul Gani have convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 3366 of 2019 for commission of offence under Section 420 IPC. He would further submit that learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record in paragraph 69 of its judgments has recorded its finding that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused has committed forgery in revenue records, Will and other documents, as such the accused persons have been acquitted from the charges under Section 467,468,471 and 34 IPC. Thus the allegation levelled against the applicant is also prima-facie false and fabricated contents of the FIR, as such the applicant is entitled to get anticipatory bail. Learned Sr. counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant will cooperate with the investigation. To substantiate his submission, learned counsel for the applicant would refer to judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Gurbakash Singh Sibgbia vs. State of Punjab reported (1980) 2 SCC 565, Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP (1994) 4 SCC 260, M.C.Abraham vs. State of Maharashtra (2003) 2 SCC 649, Siddharam Satlingappa Meetre vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1SCC 694, Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat (2016) 1 SCC 152, Siddharath vs. State of UP (2022) 1 SCC 676, Aman Preet Singh vs. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, Mariam Fasihuddin and anothers vs. State of Adugodi Police Station and Anr. Decided in Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2024 on 22.01.2024 and Jay Shri and Another vs. State of Rajasthan in SLP(Crl.) No. 14423 of 2023 decided on 19th January, 2024.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the anticipatory bail application and would submit that the name of the applicant finds place in FIR and the matter was investigated into but the applicant did not appear before the Investigating Officer or before the trial Court to defend himself until the interim was modified by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on 31.07.2023 wherein six weeks protection was granted to the applicant and after completion of six weeks, the applicant filed the anticipatory bail petition on 31.10.2023. He would further submit that there is sufficient material against the applicant in the case diary. He would further submit that the offence committed by the applicant is serious in nature, therefore, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

Counsel for the objector/victim would submit that the applicant is absconding for the last two years and 11 months. She would further submit that there is direct allegation against the applicant in the entire series of events by all the co-accused together which took place while committing offene of cheating and forgery in connivance with each other. She would further submit that trial of the case has completed and other co-accused persons have been convicted. The applicant along with other co- accused persons have cheated the victim/complainant to the tune of crores of rupees and till date no money has been received by the victim out of the amount cheated from him and the applicant is roaming Scott-free for last three years without facing trial. Counsel for the objector would further submit that present is a pure case of criminal in nature and not a civil dispute. The applicant is aware about his role in the present case as he was one of the conspirators to cheat the victim along with other co-accused persons. She would further submit that co-accused Aftab Siddique holding power of attorney applied for issuance of kisan kitab for land bearing khasra no. 886/4 and 910/1 on 8.7.2016 which was issued only on 20.09.2016, whereas the sale deed has been registered on 11.08.2016 by making a forged kisan kitab (rin pustika) bearing no. 2336822 co accused Aftab Siddiqui sold the land to the applicant. She would further submit that the aforesaid land was in the joint name of the complaint's father and other members however merely to sell the land, the word "and others" has been removed using whitener as is clear from the khara panchsala for year 2008-09 to 2012-13 for khasra no. 886/4. Khasra Panchsala for the years 1988-89 to 1992-93 and 1998-99 to 2002-2003 would show that khasra no. 886/4 is a joint property of Mohammad Idris and others as such, the applicant and the co-accused persons knew from the very beginning that the property is a joint family property, manipulated the records and executed sale deed in favour of the applicant. She would further submit that khasra no. 886/4 has been removed from the original sale deed which would show that the complainant's father, Mohd. Idris, had returned an amount of Rs. 1,83,23,000/- to the applicant vide cheque no. 232011, 232012, 231013, 232014 dated 28.02.2018 which was cleared by the account of Mohammad Idris on 06.04.2018, 09.04.2018, 16.04.2018. She would further submit that from the account statement of Mohd. Idris, it is clear that the complainant did not have sufficient amount to transfer the same to the applicant. The bank account of Mohd. Idris was being operated by co-accused Aftab Siddiqui. Since, the applicant had to show transactions of the cheque to validate the amendment deeds as there was a dispute regarding joint family property and to make his record clear, first an amount of Rs. 90,33,000/-was transferred to the account of Mohd. Idris on 05.04.2018 by the applicant, then again Rs. 90,33,000/- and Rs 71,28,740/- was transferred by the applicant on 07.04.2018 and 13.04.2018 from which the cheques of Mohd. Idris were cleared.

Counsel for the objector would further submit that from the bank account of Mohd. Idris (IDBI Bank) which was used throughout by the applicant and the co-accused persons to validate and show transactions for sale deed would show that the same was being operated by co-accused Aftab Siddiqui whose mobile number has been registered with the account. She would further submit that criminal conspiracy of the applicant along with the co accused persons is clear from the sale deed dated 11.08.2016 and from perusal of the amendment deed it is clear that signatures bear of the parties and even their thumb prints clearly show that the applicant herein was actively involved in conspiracy with the co accused persons. She would further submit that the registration amount of the above two sale deeds (stamp duty and registration amount) was to be borne by the applicant. She would submit that the statement of the Patwari namely Deepak Kumar Bhandulkar under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded wherein he has clearly stated that the applicant had come to him to get a forged Rin Pustika along with the co-accused persons. She would further submit that the investigation of the present case could not be proceeded because of the interim order passed by this Court on 25.02.2022. It was further pointed out that some of the co-accused were charge sheeted, put to trial and they have been convicted for some of the offences whereas they were acquitted in other offences. So far as applicant is concerned, he may be directed to cooperate with the investigation. She would further submit that the allegation in the FIR would demonstrate that it is not merely one involving a private dispute over a land transactions between two contesting parties but the allegation of extortion, forgery and fabrication of document, utilisation of fabricated documents to effectuate transfer of title before the registering authorities and the deprivation of the  complainant of his interest in land on the basis of a fabricated power of attorney, if the allegations in the FIR are construed as they stand, it is evident that they implicate serious offences having a bearing on a vital societal interest in securing the probity of title to or interest in land. Such offences cannot be construed to be merely private or civil disputes but implicate the societal interest in prosecuting serious crime. She would further submit that the applicant is bonafide purchaser deprived from the document submitted by them and would pray for rejection of the anticipatory bail. To substantiate her submission, learned counsel for the objector would refer to judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of "Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, (2023) 8 SCC 181. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph-29 has held as under:-

Land scams in India have been a persistent issue, involving fraudulent practices and illegal activities related to land acquisition, ownership, and transactions. Scammers often create fake land titles, forge sale deeds, or manipulate land records to show false ownership or an encumbrance-free status. Organized criminal networks often plan and execute these intricate scams, exploiting vulnerable individuals and communities, and resorting to intimidation or threats to force them to vacate their properties. These land scam not only result in financial lossses for individuals and investors but also disrupt development projects, erode public trust, and hinder socio-economic progress.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

Considering the gravity of the offence, prima-facie, involvement of the applicant, considering the statements of the complainants recorded under Sections 161 CrPC and the statements of other witness recorded in Criminal Case No. 3366 of 2019 wherein Patwari namely Deepak Kumar Bhandulkar clearly stated that he has prepared forged Rin Pustika on the instruction of the applicant and other co-accused, further considering the fact that the applicant is prima-facie beneficiary of grabbing of land of the victims by adopting unfair means, further considering the parameter laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for grant of anticipatory bail i.e. consideration of gravity of offence, prima-facie involvement of the applicant is there and also considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Pratibha Manchanda (supra), I am not inclined to grant protection under Section 438 CrPC to the applicant.

Accordingly, the present application under Section 438 of CrPC is rejected.