BRAHM ARENJA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I propose to dispose of anticipatory bail applications of Brahm Arenja and his wife Brinda Arenja whereby they are respectively seeking bail in case FIR No.55/2011 under Section 420/406/120B IPC P.S. Economic Office Wing, New Delhi.

(2.) Briefly stated, background facts for disposal of above two applications are that Shri Rajiv Rattan filed a written complaint with the police claiming that the petitioners, in conspiracy with their co-accused Ajay Ahlawat and Sangeeta Ahlawat, have cheated the complainant of '6.45 crores by fraudulently inducing him to agree to purchase a piece of land measuring 7 bighas 9 biswas claiming part of Khasra No.459 (1-15), 460(3-11) and 483(2-3) situated in village Satburi, New Delhi, which land was neither owned by the petitioners nor was free from encumbrances. Rajiv Rattan in his complaint claimed that the land in question was under acquisition since 1980 vide Notification No.F.9(16)/80L&B dated 25.11.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is alleged that the aforesaid fact was also concealed from the complainant, which led him to part with the consideration amount of sale i.e. '6.45 crores on different dates. On the basis of said complaint, FIR under Section 420/406/120B IPC was registered against the petitioners and two others.

(3.) Learned Shri Neeraj K. Kaul, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner Brahm Arenja and learned Shri Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner Brinda Arenja have made almost similar submissions. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the transaction under FIR is a purely civil transaction bereft of the ingredients of the offence of cheating or criminal misappropriation. Learned counsels for the petitioners contended that actually Col. Ajay Ahlawat, who has been made co-accused of the petitioners in the FIR, was the representative of the complainant. He negotiated the deal of purchase of the land which is subject matter of FIR with the petitioner Brahm Arenja. The sum of '6.45 crores was paid as part payment of the total consideration amount of ' 22.5 crores, however, no document but for a kachcha receipt dated 28.12.2006 was executed and it was signed by the petitioner Brahm Arenja as also Col. Ajay Ahlawat on behalf of and under instructions of the complainant. It is contended that there was no concealment on behalf of the petitioners. The complainant, who is the Managing Director of M/s India Bulls, a company involved in the real estate business, after due verification and having knowledge of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act had entered into the deal. Learned counsels argued that it was a purely speculative deal entered into by the complainant with a view to make profit and that is why neither an agreement to sell nor a sale deed or a pucca receipt of payment was executed. Learned counsels submitted that the element of deception, which is an essential ingredient to constitute offence of cheating, is missing in this case, therefore no offence under Section 420 IPC is, prima facie, made out. It is further argued that ' 6.45 crores was paid as earnest money in respect of the agreement to sell of the property, as such, it cannot be said to have been misappropriated by the petitioners to attract Section 406 IPC. Thus, it is contended that the FIR is a ploy to convert a civil dispute into an offence, as such, the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any condition which may be imposed by the Court in the event of grant of anticipatory bail.