ONKAR PRASAD MISHRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner, Onkar Prasad Mishra, in respect of FIR No.229/2007, under section 420/406/467/471/452/384/ 506/34 IPC registered by P.S. Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.

(2.) Earlier, anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 13.09.2010, whereupon the present application was filed in which the petitioner is enjoying the interim protection against the arrest.

(3.) The allegations against the petitioner are that one Yogender Sen Manchanda lodged a complaint stating therein that he was in search of a property in November, 2006, when he came in contact with Ms.Roma Khanna, a property consultant, who disclosed to him that one Onkar Prasad Mishra, the present petitioner, is known to her. It was revealed to the complainant that Onkar Prasad Mishra wanted to sell his House No.198, Block No.10, Golf Links, measuring 575 sq. yds. The petitioner is alleged to have shown photocopies of the ownership documents to the complainant. It was represented by him that the property in question actually belonged to one Smt.Raseel Kohli, who had executed a Will dated 05.01.1987, in favour of the petitioner, which was got registered by him with the Sub-Registrar on 29.09.1987. On 01.10.1987, Smt.Raseel Kohli is also purported to have executed a Gift Deed in his favour. The petitioner is alleged to have applied to the L&DO on 03.06.2005 for conversion of lease hold rights into free hold. It is stated, in the complaint, that believing the representation of the petitioner to be true, the complainant agreed to purchase the said property for a total consideration of Rs.16,50,00,000/- vide agreement to sell dated 20.11.2006 and he paid a sum of Rs.9 Lacs in cash to Om Prakash Mishra. He also handed over to him two cheques bearing No.108731 and 108732, dated 20.11.2006 for a sum of Rs.65 lacs and Rs.27 lacs respectively, and thus, in all he paid a sum of Rs.92 lacs to the petitioner. The details of the cheques were also stated to have been entered into the agreement. It is further stated that after making the payment on 20.11.2006, the complainant went to see the property whereupon he learnt that the property did not belong to the petitioner. The complainant was stopped, ostensibly by the security guards, at the entrance. It is alleged by him that because of this reason he was constrained to instruct his bankers on 21.11.2006 to stop the payment of the two cheques. It is alleged by him that the agreement was also witnessed by one D.R.Panchal and Roma Khanna. He approached the petitioner for refund of the money. It is alleged, in the complaint, that instead of returning the money, the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.95 lacs from the complainant. Later on, it is alleged by the complainant that he was threatened and the cheques issued by him were returned to him which were actually coloured photocopies of the originals and actually the originals were retained by the petitioner. It is alleged by the complainant that later on a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was also filed against the complainant on the basis of the cheques retained by the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the FIR in question bearing No.229/2007 under section 420/406/467/468/471/452/384/506/34 IPC has been registered.