AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ratnaker Bhengra, J
The petitioner has got a reasonable apprehension of being arrested in connection with Azadnagar PS Case No. 55 of 2022 registered under sections 403/ 406/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and is pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.
The fact of the case is that the informant (opposite party no.2) had entered into an agreement with the petitioner for sale of her landed property, situated at East Singhbum District and she had taken a consideration amount of Rs.35,00,000/- out of the total consideration amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. Subsequently, the informant failed to perform her assurance and the entire amount was misappropriated by her.
Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner:
Mrs. Ritu Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the complaint is of 18.04.2022. As per the complaint, at the time of Corona, her husband passed away and she was living along with her younger son, who was unemployed. Taking stock of the situation, her brother-in-law Mansoor Akhtar, his wife Rashida Naaz (complainant's sister) and their son Aadil Rashid assured her of procuring a Government job for the post of Assistant in the Secretariat to her son with salary of Rs.70,000/-to Rs.80,000/- with the help of petitioner. They also told that expenses need to be borne for procuring the job and for this, they need to meet various authorities, even travel abroad by flight, lodge in hotel, have food and for medical examination and for arranging the appointment letter much expenses will be borne and the complainant will have to give the expenses. Accordingly, for such purposes, at the instance of her own sister and brother-in-law and their son Rs.5,00,000/- was withdrawn from Canara Bank, Zakirnagar, Jamshedpur and was given in cash to Mansoor Akhtar on 23.05.2021. Thereafter, again on the instance and saying of the aforesaid persons on 01.06.2021 Rs.7,50,000/- was withdrawn from Canara Bank, Zakirnagar, Jamshedpur and on the same day, the amount in cash was conveyed to Mansoor Akhtar and Aadil Rashid. Thereafter, on the saying of Mansoor Akhtar, the complainant in a total of three times transferred an amount of Rs.14,70,000/-via RTGS/NEFT from her Canara Bank, Zakirnagar, Jamshedpur. Hence, by the aforesaid transfer, the complainant at the instance of her sister Rashida Naaz and her sister's son Aadil Rashid, transferred Rs. 27,20,000/- to her brother-in-law Mansoor Akhtar and Tanveer Akhtar.
The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted by pointing to Annexure on page no.32 of the petition, which is the copy of the agreement dated 13.11.2019 between the seller Kazi Sarik Ehsan and buyer Tanveer Akhtar for landed property of 4.13 decimals, valued at Rs.1,50,00,000/- and that as per the agreement petitioner Tanveer Akhtar had paid Rs.35,00,000/- in advance for procuring the landed property. The learned counsel further submitted that Rs.27,20,000/- conveyed by the complainant to Tanveer Akhtar and other accused or via them is actually return payments for the land in question for which he had earlier paid to the complainant for the purchase of the land and only part of the amount of Rs.27,20,000/- was merely returned to him.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that even prior to the complaint lodged by the opposite party no.2 herein, the petitioner had lodged a Complaint Case No. 3649 of 2022 dated 11.03.2022, that is even before the complaint of the opposite party no.2 dated 18.04.2022. The learned counsel has said that in this complaint it has been pointed out that the opposite party no.2 had agreed to sell 4.13 decimals of land for total consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/ and the petitioner had paid Rs.35,00,000/- to the opposite party no.2, but the opposite party no.2 said that land price had increased and land was not transferred, then petitoner repeatedly asked for the return of his money. Thereafter, Rs.12,50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- was returned or paid to him via RTGS on 06.07.2021, Rs.2,00,000/- via NEFT on 17.08.2021 and again Rs.20,000/-via NEFT on 14.09.2021, which is a total of Rs.14,70,000/- and Rs.20,30,000/- still remained to be paid, hence, the petitioner had filed Complaint Case No.3649 of 2022 dated 11.03.2022.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought the aforesaid land sale and purchase deal on record via supplementary affidavit dated 30.06.2023 wherein the petitioner has stated that the son of the complainant, namely, Kazi Sarik Ehsan entered into an agreement with the present petitioner way back in the year 2019 by executing a sale agreement promising to sell a piece of land measuring 4.12 decimals, situated at Mauza Golmuri, District: Seraikela-Kharsawan and accepting a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- as advance amount. Subsequently the said Kazi Sarik Ehsan never executed the sale deed in respect of above-mentioned agreement despite several requests and lastly, the petitioner asked him to refund the advance amount on such pretext a sum of Rs.14,70,000/- was refunded back by the said Kazi Sarik Ehsan by way of RTGS/NEFT from his mother, namely Hamida Bano's account in three times i.e. 06.07.2021, 02.07.2021 and on 17.08.2021. The rest amount has not been paid and such situation compelled the petitioner to lodge a complaint against the complainant and her son, namely, Kazi Sarik Ehsan which was registered as Kotwali PS Case No. 215 of 2022 under sections 406, 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has also attached his HDFC Bank statement as Annexure-5 to prove return payments.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, pointing out to the petition, has said that as far as criminal antecedents are concerned, in many of them he is on bail. The learned counsel has further submitted that it will not be out of place to mention here that there are reference of seven cases said to be pending against the petitioner but as far as Patratu PS Case No. 287 of 2016 is concerned, the same is not lodged against the petitioner; the petitioner is on bail in connection with Lower Bazar PS Case No. 95 of 2019; in Lower Bazar PS Case No. 50 of 2016 matter has been compromised; in Lower Bazar PS Case No. 176 of 2019, the petitioner has been granted bail; in Patratu PS Case No. 287 of 2016, the petitioner has been granted bail by the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand by order dated 02.08.2018; in Complaint Case No. 2634 of 2015, the same is at the stage of appearance, and in Complaint Case No. 2491 of 2015, the petitioner has been acquitted on contest.
Arguments of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2:
Mr. A.K. Kashyap, the learned senior counsel for the opposite party no.2, has argued that the petitioner is not innocent and the complainant/ opposite party no.2 has not falsely implicated him in this case rather he has cheated the opposite party no.2 and has committed criminal breach of trust by not providing job to her son as promised. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that in the false agreement for landed property made by the petitioner, signature of opposite party no.2 son's namely Kazi Sarik Ehsan has been forged which can be easily verified by comparing that signature with her son's original signature for which she has attached a copy of her son's passport.
The learned senior counsel has further argued that details of landed property as per Tanveer Akhtar's forged agreement is that the complainant wanted to sell 4 decimals and 13 chatank of plot no. 2421, khata no.218, situated at PS: Golmuri, under Seraikela District. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that main thing here is that the opposite party no.2 does not have any landed property registered either in her name or in the name of her son, so, question of executing any sale agreement by the opposite party no.2 in favour of the petitioner does not arise at all. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that Golmuri, Jamshedpur comes under East Singhbhum District and not under Seraikella District as written in false agreement. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that upon enquiry from Government Amin, the opposite party no.2 found out that khata number under Golmuri Mauza is up to 58 only but as per the petitioner's forged agreement khata number 218 is written on it and plot number 2421 is written which does not even exist. In Golmuri division, there is not trend of writing small unit of land as chatank, here dhur word is used for smaller unit of land and the land is usually measured in kattha (720 sq. ft.). The learned senior counsel has further submitted that if the land is in Golmuri, which is in Jamshedpur then why would the petitioner make an agreement in Ranchi, so the said agreement has lost its jurisdiction.
The learned senior counsel has further submitted that whenever anybody purchases a land worth crores of rupees, he will definitely verify the land papers like rent receipt, mutation slip and other land related documents, then it is not possible that the petitioner would make an agreement without seeing any kind of land related papers. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that another main fact is that the petitioner in his false agreement paper has mentioned the date which is 13.11.2019, in this agreement 'late' is written before the name of the husband of the opposite party no.2 while the truth is that her husband died on 30.04.2021 due to COVID pandemic and this can be verified by the death certificate of her husband which she has attached with the document.
The learned senior counsel has further submitted that son of the opposite party no.2 Kazi Sarik Ehsan was on training from 05.11.2019 to 16.11.2019 organized by the internationally recognized institution NEBOSH UK which was conducted by the NIST Institute Private Limited in Kolkata which is an authorized course provider and upon completion of training period they gave her son certificates and in this training period date is clearly written on it which is valid proof that her son was in Kolkata and not in Ranchi on 13.11.2019, still the petitioner made a false agreement of that particular day with all the false information and false witnesses for his benefit. When the son of the opposite party no.2 went to Kolkata for training through NIST Institute Private Limited in Kolkata, he had booked train ticket online through internet for 04.11.2019 on Jan Shatabdi train having PNR no. 6136304654 and after that when the training period completed he again booked ticket online for 16.11.2019 on Steel Express train having PNR no.6236904184, these tickets can be verified and is a valid proof of travelling to Kolkata and staying there during the training period. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that when the son of the opposite party no.2 Kazi Sarik Ehsan underwent training in Kolkata, he stayed there from the night of 04.11.2019 at 11:30 p.m. to the morning of 16.11.2019 at Royal Kolkata Guest House, 124 Ustad Enayat Khan Ave, Lower Range, Beck Bagan, Elgin, Kolkata- 700017. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that mobile location of her son Kazi Sarik Ehsan of 13.11.2019 clearly shows that he was inside the NIST Institute Private Limited premises from 09:07 a.m. to 05:37 p.m. and during lunch time the food was provided by institution so there was no question of going outside the premises even for lunch, while the petitioner in his false agreement has written that the time of around 1:00 p.m., this clearly shows the conspiracy behind the false agreement and how the petitioner has manipulated the things for his benefit.
The learned senior counsel has further submitted that upon insistence of the younger sister of the opposite party no.2, Rashida Naaz's husband Mansoor Akhtar, she gave the petitioner Rs.14,70,000/- in his bank account through RTGS/ NEFT as Mansoor Akhtar assured the opposite party no.2 that the petitioner and his relatives are a man of faith and have procured many jobs to others and will surely help in getting a job for her son so that he could take care of the opposite party no.2 and stay with her since she lives alone after the death of her husband on 30.04.2021. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that the opposite party no.2 and her son did not know the petitioner before May, 2021, and in May 2021 after the death of her husband her younger sister's husband Mansoor Akhtar introduced opposite party no.2 to the petitioner saying that the petitioner is his relative and a political leader with influence and they together fraudulently took Rs.27,20,000/- from the opposite party no.2 and have not returned it so far and they continued to threaten them through different mediums that they would kill the son of the opposite party no.2 Kazi Sarik Ehsan if they asked the petitioner for their money.
Finally, the learned senior counsel has submitted that Tanveer Akhtar has long criminal record of similar nature, which are as follows-Patratu PS Case No. 287 of 2016; Lower Bazar PS Case No. 95 of 2019; Lower Bazar PS Case No. 50 of 2016; Lower Bazar PS Case No. 176 of 2019;Lower Bazar PS Case No. 176 of 2019; Complaint Case No. 2634 of 2015 and Complaint Case No. 2491 of 2015.
CONCLUSION
Having gone through the case records, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned senior counsel for the opposite party no.2, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, named above, in connection with Azadnagar PS Case No. 55 of 2022, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.
Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
A.B.A. No. 3285 of 2023 is dismissed.