MRS PAVITA BOPARAI Vs. NEERAJ SARAF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY virtue of this Petition, the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 14.08.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) whereby in the event of his arrest Respondent No.1 was ordered to be admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned. A condition was further put in the pre-arrest bail order that the First Respondent shall join investigation as and when required and shall cooperate in furnishing the documents as may be sought by the Investigating Officer and that he shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court.

(2.) IN May, 2007 on the basis of an investment proposal received through some broker, the Petitioner along with her husband approached the office of the Respondent. A representation was made by the Respondent (Neeraj Saraf) and his father (now deceased) that the Petitioner shall earn an income of 18 to 20% per annum on her investment in purchase of a shop (approximately 682.86 sq.ft) under construction in the Mall. An agreement to sell was executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Petitioner paid 84% of the total sale consideration as down payment, that is, Rs.29,00,000/- out of a total sale consideration of Rs.34,82,586/-. The Petitioner was assured a monthly return of Rs.47,885/- in terms of clauses 3 and 4 of the agreement to sell and some post dated cheques were also delivered to the Petitioner.

(3.) ON 08.12.2008, the Respondent wrote a letter to the Petitioner assuring her that the entire project would be completed in two months and thus the Respondent would not be making the assured payment of rent from January onwards which was mentioned in clauses 3, 4 and 6 of the agreement to sell. On 16.12.2008, the postdated cheque for the month of December, 2008 was returned with the remarks "Drawer's signature incomplete/illegible/differs". On 23.12.2008, the Petitioner wrote a letter to the Respondent reminding him about the clauses 3 and 4 of the agreement to sell which were duly executed on 31.05.2007 between the parties. In response to the said communication by a letter dated 27.12.2008 the Respondent stated that the aforesaid clauses in the agreement to sell were mistake of fact and were inserted without their knowledge. According to the Petitioner, in another case in an Application for anticipatory bail moved by the Respondent, this Court, in pursuance of the mediation between both parties, directed the registry to release an amount of Rs.60,90,803/-. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent since the very beginning had criminal intent to cheat the Petitioner. Although, by a letter dated 08.12.2008 the Respondent assured that the project would be completed in two months, yet even in the year 2013 the project is far from nearing completion.