SAMBHAV KHANNA Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of this application under Section 438 of Cr.PC the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.524/2014 under Sections 406/420 IPC registered at Police Station Patel Nagar, Delhi.

(2.) The FIR in the instant case was registered on the basis of a complaint made by Sh. R.N. Chawla, Mr.Vineet and Mr Rakesh Sachdeva, Directors of M/s RVR Hospitality Pvt. Ltd alleging therein that the petitioner/accused Sambhav Khanna who was working as HR Marketing with M/s Tech Mahindra approached and persuaded the complainant company through Mr Asim Gera at his office at 29/138, West Patel Nagar, Delhi that he would get arranged four canteens/20 counters for the complainant from M/s Tech Mahindra in their various projects at Noida, Uttar Pradesh and from where they would earn approximately Rs.1 crore per month and for the same, he had demanded Rs.60 lac as his commission/brokerage charges as he is working as HR Marketing with M/s Tech Mahindra. They in good faith gave the said money in cash on different dates. It is further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner/accused once again approached them to arrange and keep a staff of 40 people stating that they need to show to Tech Mahindra that they had the requisite staff and infrastructure to run the 20 counters. But the petitioner/accused failed to honour the said deal and got allotted the 4 canteens/20 counters in the name of complainant in spite of repeated requests and reminder made by them. In the month of April, 2014, the petitioner/accused got allotted two counters in the name of complainant from M/s Tech Mahindra in NSEZ Phase II, Noida, U.P. but the petitioner failed to get allotted the remaining counters. On 17.05.2014 a meeting took place between the petitioner and complainant at the office of one Mr Aseem Gera at 29/138, West Patel Nagar and in the said meeting the petitioner consented and admitted about both deals and acceptance of amount of Rs.80 lac and told that he will return back the entire money within 90 days, out of which a part payment of Rs.5 lac will be given on 30.05.2014. The entire meeting and conversation of phone was recorded and provided as evidence in the form of CD but on 30.05.2014 when they approached the accused for payment of Rs.5 lac as promised, the petitioner made hue and cry and threatened the complainants that he is going to commit suicide and for his death they would be liable. The petitioner neither returned the money of the complainant nor got allotted the said counters. As such, accused committed offence u/s 403/406/415/420 and 506 IPC.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that FIR has been registered at police station Patel Nagar, however, no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of police station Patel Nagar. As per the averments made in the FIR, the canteens were to be opened at Noida. Moreover, the FIR has been registered under Section 406/420 IPC. Ingredients of both the sections are entirely different and both these provisions cannot go together. Further, offence under Section 406 IPC is punishable upto three years and fine. That being so, the Court can even release the petitioner on fine on final conclusion of trial. That being so, it is not advisable to send the petitioner in custody. As regards Section 420 IPC is concerned, this is not the forum to recover money. Moreover, there is no documentary evidence to substantiate the allegations of the complainant that any amount was paid in cash to the petitioner. After the grant of bail, the petitioner joined investigation on various occasions. All the original cheques have been given to the Investigating Officer of the case. As per status report dated 13.11.2014 custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the purpose of taking his voice sample and for recovery of cheated money. It was submitted that when the petitioner had joined investigation on three occasions, why his voice sample was not taken, however, he is still ready and willing to give the same. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioner has roots in the society. He is married and has the responsibility to maintain his family. There are no chances of his absconding. Under the circumstances, the interim protection granted to him be made absolute.