CHANCHAL GOYAL Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these petitions, the petitioners seek anticipatory bail in FIR No. 504/2021 registered pursuant to the directions of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. under Ss. 420/34/120-B IPC at PS K.N. Katju Marg.

(2.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners contends that the alleged audio recording of the conversation alongwith the status report dtd. 13/1/2022 neither mentions the date nor the time of conversation. Further from the short reply of the complainant, it is evident that this alleged conversation filed alongwith the status report dtd. 13/1/2022 was of 3/10/2021 after filing of the complaint on 21/9/2021 resulting in the registration of the abovenoted FIR.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners further states that the complainant sold the property to the petitioners on which the investigating officer of P.S. Connaught Place had already issued a letter to the Sub- Registrar, Pargana Magistrate (Sadar), Dehradun, Uttrakhand requesting to maintain status quo as the same was a matter of investigation in FIR Nos.43/2020, 44/2020, 45/2020 and 46/2020 under Ss. 419/420/468/471/120B IPC registered at P.S. Connaught Place. The alleged money transferred to the account of Naveen Kumar Deosaria was the return of the earnest money taken vide Agreement to Sell entered into between Naveen Kumar Deosaria, Natish and Prachi Saxena, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-2 to the Bail. Appl. 11/2022. It is the petitioners who have been duped by the complainant Prachi Saxena who is a lawyer and accused in abovenoted FIR No.45/2020 alongwith her husband and by relying upon the alleged conversations after the filing of the complaint, the complainant is trying to mislead this Court.