C.S. AGGARWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the Petitioner had sought immediate release of the Petitioner and quashing of the orders dated 15 th September, 2011 and 17 th September, 2011 granting/extending the police custody of the Petitioner, appointment of new investigating officer and directions to ensure fair and unbiased investigation.

(2.) Initially the matter was referred to the Hon'ble Division Bench in view of the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was under illegal detention and he was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, the Hon'ble Division Bench came to the conclusion that the relief sought by the Petitioner was essentially of seeking bail and other reliefs as enumerated in the other prayers of the amended writ petition. Therefore, by order dated 18 th October, 2011, the matter was referred back to this Court. In the present writ petition the Petitioner confines his prayer to the grant of bail only.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the present FIR was registered pursuant to the directions of learned ACMM on an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on a complaint of one Shri Sameer Kohli, Director of M/s Kohli, One Housing & Development Private Limited. The allegations relate to extending of a loan of Rs.12 crores to the Petitioner's company by the complainant's company. According to the Petitioner, the allegations in the FIR even if taken on the face value make out a purely civil dispute and do not disclose commission of any criminal offence. It is for this reason that vide order dated 6 th March, 2010, the learned ACMM while directing registration of FIR, directed the Investigating Officer not to be influenced by the order of registration of FIR and should not proceed to arrest the accused in haste, without being satisfied of the grounds of arrest. According to the Petitioner, the complainant has already lodged another FIR bearing No.264/2009 under Sections 420/406/120B at PS EOW on 23 rd December, 2009 regarding the same dispute. The main dispute between the parties related to a project of SEZ area in Gurgaon and the present dispute is also a part of the said larger dispute between the parties for which the FIR has already been registered. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that in lieu of the loan of Rs.12 crores, the petitioner had deposited the title deed, which admittedly as per the complainant were in his possession and no mortgage deed was created. The loan of Rs.12 crores was to be repaid till 31 st May, 2008. Besides depositing the title deed of property bearing No.F 1/7 Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi, the Petitioner even gave a cheque of Rs.12 crores which fact has been admitted by the complainant in the civil proceedings between the parties and has been deliberately concealed in the present FIR. This cheque of Rs.12 crores is still in possession of the complainant. The bona fide of the Petitioner are further established by the fact that the complainant gave a further loan of Rs.1.5 crores on 4 th August, 2008 and as per the loan agreement, the date of repayment of additional loan was not stated. The giving of the additional loan despite non-payment of earlier loan without any security shows that there was some oral understanding between the parties. The complainant knew it fully well that it had returned back the title deed to the Petitioner, which are admittedly in the possession of the Petitioner, however, he deliberately lodged a police complaint regarding missing of the title deeds on 25 th November, 2009 and took out a public notice on 30 th November, 2009. Despite loss of documents reported to police station Vasant Kunj, no intimation was sent to the Petitioner, who was the actual owner of the documents, that the documents were lost. The return of the title deeds to the Petitioner, which have been given by the Petitioner to the investigating agency further shows that there was oral arrangements between the parties besides the written agreements.