MUKESH KHURANA Vs. STATE OF NCT DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR No.435/2020, under Ss. 420/406/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi.

(2.) The facts may be noted. The FIR has been lodged by Mr. Karan Sachar, authorized representative of M/s Vaishali Infratech (Pvt.) Ltd., on the allegations of cheating and misappropriation. The applicant, through his Company, M/s Rudra Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., is a builder and has a project, namely, 'Rudra Palace Heights', in which, the complainant/Company booked 11 flats. Large sums of money had also been paid for the flats amounting to Rs.1,33,87,500.00 towards 75% of the consideration. The applicant is the promoter and Director of M/s Rudra Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. There were others also named as accused in the FIR. Fundamentally, the complaint was that these investments were made in the year 2015. However, despite the fact that the flats were to be fully constructed and handed over in 2018, till date, no flat had been handed over to the complainant, rather the complainant came across a Charge intimation to the Registrar of Companies filed by the applicant, informing of the sale of the very same 11 flats to 11 other persons. Thus, the allegation that the applicant had cheated the complainant.

(3.) Ms. Rebecca John, the learned senior counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant admitted the fact that there was a Builder Buyers Agreement with the complainant in respect of 11 flats and that 75% of the consideration amounting to Rs.1,33,87,500.00 had been paid for them by the complainant and that only 25% remained to be paid at the time when the possession was to be given. However, it was denied that there was any duplicate sale. It was explained that it was an inadvertent mistake when the names of the 11 others were shown as having purchased the 11 flats that were allocated to the complaint. Learned senior counsel underlined the fact that no flats have been sold to the complainant nor was it sold to any other person and what had taken place was mere allocation. Therefore, she submits that the applicant was ready to resolve the dispute.