Pratyush Krishna Banerjee vs The State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the State as also learned Counsel for the informant.

Petitioner is an accused in a case registered u/s 406, 420 of the I.P.C. in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No. 36 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 384 of 2011 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that as per the F.I.R the allegation against the Petitioner is that Petitioner made a verbal agreement with Sunil Tiwary for the sale of his lands about 11.5 katthas at M.S. Plot No. 1072 ward No. 3, mohalla-Uppar Bazar, area between Makey Road and Nil Ratan Street. The sale was fixed at Rs. 1,30,00,000/-. It is alleged that the Petitioner stated that there are other co-sharers of the property and he has informed all the co-sharers from telephone and believing him on 20.1.2004 and 28.7.2004, by cash and cheque the informant paid Rs. 23 lakh as advance to the accused-Petitioner. It is further stated that subsequently, also on the request of the Petitioner that he has to give money to his co-sharer, money was given in advance to the tune of Rs. 97,87,000/-till 16.4.2006. The Petitioner-accused assured the informant that after taking power of attorney from all the co-sharer he will execute the sale deed on payment of rest of the money, but since time was passing out and the accused failed to execute the sale deed, informant filed Title Suit No. 264 of 2010 stating all the things. It is alleged that the Defendant No. 7 to 11, who are co-sharer filed their written statement on 18.5.2010 and they stated that they have got No. knowledge about the agreement and No. money had been paid to them. Then the informant asked for receipt from the accused-Petitioner with regard to the money paid to his co-sharer to which Petitioner refused to give any such receiving and for the first time informant came to know that accused- Petitioner has cheated him and he has taken entire some of Rs. 97,87,000/-in the name of giving to his co-sharer and hence, lodged this F.I.R.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the dispute is only civil in nature, since admittedly the Petitioner has filed T.S. No. 264 of 2010 before filing of this F.I.R. It is further submitted that as per the agreement annexed with the F.I.R it is clear that if the agreement will be canceled account will be verified and advance taken be refunded with interest. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that it will appear from the averments made in para 14 and 15 of the Title suit filed by the informant that with the concurrence of the female co-sharer and other co-sharer, Defendant No. 1 to 4, 7 to 11 and 13 to 16 jointly and unanimously decided to sale the suit property to salable buyers, hence there is No. concealment from the co-sharer and there is No. question of cheating the informant. In that view of the matter, Petitioner may be enlarge on bail.

Learned Counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer and submitted that Petitioner had intention to cheat the informant right from the beginning since on the one hand he says that he informed all the co-sharer while the Defendants No. 7 to 11, when they appeared in the T.S. No. 269 of 2010, they stated on 18.5.2010 that they had No. knowledge of the agreement of sale nor they received any money from the accused - Petitioner. Moreover, it will appear that subsequently, the accused-Petitioner sold the said property during the pendency of the agreement and suit, to one Shyam Jalan which is also violation of terms of agreement which shows the intention of Petitioner-accused. It is further submitted that earlier the Petitioner had moved before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi for anticipatory bail in A.B.P. No. 385 of 2011 and it will appear from the order sheet dated 30.5.2011 which is as under " it was submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that on 11.1.2010 an agreement was arrived at between the parties that money will be refunded to the informant along with the interest which was calculated to the tune of Rs. 2,16,00,000/-and it was to be paid in two installments". The document is also the part of the record. Considering the aforesaid facts since, both the parties were ready to settle the matter amicably the interim order of No. coercive step was extended till 18.4.2011, but subsequently the Petitioner filed a petition that the submission made by their lawyers was not with the consent of the accused-Petitioner, hence the matter was finally heard and the anticipatory bail was rejected. This also shows that the Petitioner, even after settling the matter retracted and failed to honour their own settlement, hence he does not deserve to be enlarge on bail.

After hearing both the parties and going through the record it appears that although the Petitioner kept the informant under the belief that he has taken consent from his co-sharer for the sale of the property and will execute the sale deed after obtaining power of attorney from all the co-sharer and for obtaining such power of attorney, he took advance payment to the co-sharer to the tune of Rs. 97,87,000/-, but for the first time when the co-sharer, Defendant No. 7 to 11 appeared in the T.S. No. 264 of 2010 and filed their written statement on 18.5.2010 it was found that they had got No. knowledge about the agreement to sale nor they had received any money from the Petitioner then the informant came to know that he has been cheated and filed this F.I.R. During the argument for anticipatory bail before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in A.B.P. No. 385 of 2011, it appears from the order sheet dated 30.5.2011 that the Petitioner submitted in the court that on 11.1.2010 agreement has been arrived at between the parties that the money will be returned to the informant with interest which was calculated to the tune of Rs. 2, 16,00,000/-and it was to be paid in two installments and the document of the settlement was also made part of the record and on the basis of the aforesaid agreement Petitioner got order of No. coercive step against him, but subsequently they retracted from that submission also. It is also apparent that during the pendency of the agreement and suit the suit property was sold to outsider third part namely Shyam Jalan which also shows the malicious action of the Petitioner.

Considering all these facts, I find that Petitioner has not come with clean hands and his intention was only to cheat the informant and he has also cheated his co-sharer.

In that view of the matter, I am of not inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on anticipatory bail and hence, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.