RAVINDER JANGHU Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In furtherance of last order, it is informed by both sides that despite last and final opportunity, the accused/applicant did not pay the balance settlement amount. That being so, I heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned APP assisted by learned counsel for complainant de facto.

(2.) The accused/applicant has sought anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 856/2023 of PS Ranhola for offence under Sec. 420/403/34 IPC. Broadly speaking, the allegation against the accused/applicant is that he entered into an agreement to sell an immovable property and accepted earnest money to the tune of Rs.15,00,000.00 from complainant de facto, but thereafter, instead of completing the sale transaction, he sold away the subject property to a third party. But most importantly, according to the FIR, the subject property is owned by DSIDC on which few plants were grown and a bathroom had been constructed.

(3.) Learned counsel for accused/applicant has taken me through the bayana agreement, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure 4 (colly). Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute, given colour of criminality only to arm-twist the accused/applicant. It is explained by learned counsel for accused/applicant that according to the bayana receipt, the sale transaction of the subject property had to be concluded after payment of the balance amount by 10/10/2021 and since that was not done by the complainant de facto, the accused/applicant forfeited the earnest money and sold away the property to a third party.