ADHUNIK TRANSPORT ORGANIZATION LTD Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present CRMP under Sec. 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed assailing the order dtd. 4/5/2026 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act) and First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Criminal (PC Act) Case No. 1/2024, whereby the applicant's application seeking removal of the restriction on transfer, purchase and sale of the properties in question has been dismissed.

(2.) (a) The facts necessary for adjudication of the present CRMP, in brief, are that the applicant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and claims to be the owner of various parcels of land situated at Village Raipur, Ring Road No.1, District Raipur, admeasuring about 5.471 hectares (13.519 acres), along with structures standing thereon. According to the applicant, it had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dtd. 5/12/2022 with M/s Aishwarya Agri Resorts Pvt. Ltd. for sale of the aforesaid property. It is pleaded that the said MoU was not a final sale agreement and that no registered agreement for sale was ever executed between the parties. The applicant asserts that it received a total sum of Rs.5,15,00,000.00 from the proposed purchaser and its associates towards the proposed transaction. It is further pleaded that since the proposed purchaser failed to complete the transaction, the applicant issued various communications, notices and ultimately terminated the arrangement.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant-company is neither an accused in Crime No.04/2024 nor is any criminal case pending against it. It is contended that the applicant is the lawful owner of the subject properties and has been in possession thereof for several years. Learned counsel would submit that the applicant had merely entered into a MoU dtd. 5/12/2022 with M/s Aishwarya Agri Resorts Pvt. Ltd. in respect of the proposed sale of the properties, however, the transaction never culminated into a registered agreement or sale deed. It is further submitted that the proposed purchaser failed to perform its obligations under the MoU despite repeated communications and legal notices issued by the applicant and, consequently, the arrangement stood terminated. Learned counsel argues that the applicant has no connection whatsoever with the offences alleged in Crime No.04/2024 and that the restraint imposed on transfer of the properties is solely on account of allegations levelled against third parties. Learned counsel further submits that the value of the subject properties is substantially higher than the amount allegedly received by the applicant under the proposed transaction and there is no material available on record to indicate that the properties in question were acquired from any tainted source or constitute proceeds of crime. It is contended that the continued restriction on transfer of the properties has caused serious prejudice to the applicant and has adversely affected its business interests. It is, therefore, urged that the learned Special Judge has erred in rejecting the applicant's prayer for removal of the restraint imposed upon the purchase and sale of the properties and the impugned order deserves to be set aside.