MUKESH AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Sec. 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 Ss. 420,467,468,471 read with Sec. 34 IPC.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 9/1/2019 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.30.00 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 and 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 dtd. 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 Ss. 420,467,468,471 read with Sec. 34 IPC was registered against the applicant.

(3.) 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.3,85,50,500.00. 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 11/8/2016, 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.3,85,80,500.00 was paid to land owner Md. Idris through cheques. After execution of the aforesaid sale deed dtd. 11/8/2016, 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 dtd. 23/2/2017 (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 Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was also filed by Bushra Shareef for registration of FIR, however, vide order dtd. 10/7/2017 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 dtd. 11/8/2016 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.7,42,04,500.00 and Rs.2,48,56,500.00 respectively on 10/3/2017, two sale deeds were executed accordingly. It was agreed by Md. Idris, an amended deed was executed on 15/3/2017 to confirm sale deed dtd. 11/8/2016 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 dtd. 11/8/2016 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 dtd. 28/2/2018 to the previous sale deed dtd. 11/8/2016 deleting the Khasra No.886/4 and agreement to refund the sale consideration amount on pro-rata basis amounting to Rs.1,83,23,000.00 were also executed. Further case is that on 9/1/2019, after a lapse of more than two years and four months from the date of execution of first sale deed dtd. 11/8/2016, 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 9/2/2019 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 dtd. 30/3/2017 but yet to receive part of consideration of Rs.15.00 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.7,26,19,715.00 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 and 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 11/8/2016). 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 Ss. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 22/1/2024 and Jay Shri and Another vs. State of Rajasthan in SLP(Crl.) No. 14423 of 2023 decided on 19/1/2024.