LAWS(DLH)-2010-8-151

VIPEN KUMAR PARWANDA Vs. STATE

Decided On August 09, 2010
VIPEN KUMAR PARWANDA Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I shall dispose of the above two bail applications, one preferred by husband under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail and the other preferred by wife under Section 439 Cr.P.C for regular bail. Both are involved in a case under Sections 420/468/448 read with Section 34 IPC.

(2.) The focal point of entire alleged crime is a property bearing number A-8, Pocket 139, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi-110019, which has a basement and three floors. According to complainant vide sale agreement dated 1st April 1994 executed by husband and wife along with a possession letter, payment of consideration receipt, Will, GPA, SPA, affidavits and indemnity bonds the second floor of the said property was sold to him and payment was received by applicants by cheques of equal value in favour of both the owners. Subsequently, basement, ground floor and terrace of second floor were also sold to complainant by executing similar documents on 1st July, 1994 and payment was received in lieu thereof by both husband and wife through cheques. Despite having sold the property to complainant, both the accused persons pledged the entire property to Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Connaught Place Branch, New Delhi for taking loan. This loan amount was not paid and Jammu and Kashmir Bank filed a recovery suit against both of them. Subsequent to that, both husband and wife sold the first floor of the said property to Rajesh Bindra i.e. brother-in-law of wife and got the sale deed registered with the Office of Sub-Registrar on 26th August 2007. This was done despite the fact the whole of the property was mortgaged with Jammu and Kashmir Bank. Mr. Rajesh Bindra, brother in law of the husband to whom the first floor was sold, again mortgaged this first floor of the property to DBS Cholamanglam Bank and took a loan of Rs.1,53,00,000/- on 30th May, 2009. When he mortgaged the first floor, the entire property was already lying mortgaged with Jammu and Kashmir Bank. Mr. Rajesh Bindra had mortgaged this property to DBS Cholamanglam Bank on the ground that he was the owner of the said property. He, however, executed an affidavit dated 5th December 2009 that the property was not his property and stated that the sale deed dated 26th September 2009 with respect to first floor of the said property was a private arrangement between him and the two accused persons/ petitioners herein and this document had no value and it stood cancelled immediately on execution. Neither he nor anyone through him had any claim, right, title in the said property and the said property belonged to two accused persons who were competent to deal with it and free to sell, mortgage or create any third party interest in whole of the said property. This affidavit of Mr. Rajesh Bindra is part of the bail application. The said property was again sold to the complainants.

(3.) A complaint was filed by Mr. Ashish Uppal, Mr. Manoj Kumar and Mr. Surender Kumar as well in December 2009 at Police Station Kalkaji against both husband and wife on account of receiving hefty consideration from them for sale of the aforesaid property at Kalkaji to them. It was alleged that they learnt that Mr. Rajesh Bindra was the owner of the first floor of the said property. It was also discovered that both the accused persons had sold the second floor of the property for consideration to their daughter Ms. Sonia Grover and a fresh sale deed of ownership was created and a loan would be obtained from the bank. The said property was sold to them despite the fact the property was not even owned by them and was already lying mortgaged with Jammu and Kashmir Bank. Ms. Sonia Grover also gave an affidavit in favour of her parents, accused herein, stating that the sale deed executed in her favour was a sham sale deed. Both husband and wife had executed an agreement to sell in favour of Mr. Ashish Uppal, Mr. Manoj Kumar and Mr. Surender Kumar on 25th October 2009 and received consideration of Rs.25 lac from them through various cheques, details of which are available on record.