PRADEEP CHIKKARA Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have preferred their respective bail applications under Sec. 438 Cr PC to seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No.201/2013 under Sec. 467/468/471/120B read with 34 Penal Code registered at PS Chhawla. The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint of one Smt. Birwati, wife of Sh. Rakesh vide DD No.368 dated 27.04.2013 alleging that the two petitioners herein have forged some false documents relating to plot bearing No.3 ID, Vasant Kunj, which, at one point of time was allotted by the DDA in the name of her ancestors. She alleged that the petitioners had threatened her with implication in a false case.

(2.) In her FIR, the complainant stated that her father and uncles were jointly allotted plot A-94, Rangpuri, Vasant Kunj by the DDA. She stated that the family had jointly agreed to sell the said flat to one Sh. M.N. Sharma, Raj Nagar, Part 11, New Delhi. Subsequently, the DDA cancelled allotment of Plot No.94 and, instead, allotted another plot No.D-31 admeasuring 250 sq mtrs. This plot was also agreed to be sold by the family of the complainant to Sh. M.N. Sharma. However, the DDA again cancelled the allotment of this plot and, instead, allotted Plot No.B-1-2. She stated that since the plot had been allotted in the name of her father and uncles, in order to get the same mutated, her brothers and sister decided to execute a relinquishment deed in her favour by getting the same registered at Kapasehra. She states that since an agreement had been reached to sell the said plot to Sh. M.N. Sharma, Sh. M.N. Sharma asked the owners to come to his office. She states that she and the other owners reached the office of Sh. M.N. Sharma for execution of the relinquishment deed, when Sh. M.N. Sharma sent the accused Pradeep Chikara to Kapashera court along with the complainant and the other owners. At that place, Pradeep Chikara obtained the thumb impression and signatures of the co-owners on many typed and blank papers. He also obtained the original allotment letter from the complainant by saying that it would be required to be shown to the Magistrate for executing the relinquishment deed. Then he got the relinquishment deed executed. He also kept the receipt with him after getting the relinquishment deed executed.

(3.) The complainant stated that when Pradeep Chikara was asked about the relinquishment deed and the allotment letter, he kept misguiding the complainant by giving various alibis and reasons. When he was pressurised for the same, he stated that after obtaining the relinquishment deed from the court, when he was going to get the relinquishment deed and the allotment letter photocopied, the said documents fell somewhere on the way. She further stated that on Pradeep Chikara being questioned, he suggested that the complainant should go to the police station and lodge a complaint. Accordingly, the complainant lodged a complaint on 10.05.2012. She further stated that the owners obtained the certified copy of the relinquishment deed and executed registered sale papers in favour of one Puneel Sharma - who is the son of Sh. M.N. Sharma, on 16.11.2014 at Kapasehra Court.