ASHWANI OBEROI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in the afore-noted FIR.

(2.) The FIR has been registered pursuant to a complaint lodged by Girish Kumar Khattar who stated that Somwati and her husband Ombir (since deceased) approached him through one Mehar Singh in respect of sale of plot No.AG-36, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi which was allotted to Ombir and Somwati by DDA in lieu of some land which was acquired and placed at the disposal of DDA. That he was told that Somwati and her husband had to deposit money with DDA and that leasehold rights would be granted by DDA to them. That based on the representation, complainant deposited a sum of Rs.9,24,207/- and also deposited Rs.52,411/- as stamp duty with DDA. That he paid Rs.9,96,000/- to Somwati and Ombir as sale consideration of the plot and got executed a power of attorney, special power of attorney and a will from them in his favour. That all original documents pertaining to the plot issued by DDA were handed over to him by Somwati and her husband. That the transaction in question took place on 24.6.1997 and that after DDA handed over possession of the plot he had been in possession thereof. He had erected a boundary wall. Municipal tax pertaining to the vacant land were paid by him. That he remained in uninterrupted possession of the property till 17.2.2000. That on 17.2.2000, Ombir lodged a false complaint with the police that he had lost original titler documents. That on 6.8.2000, Ombir and some goons attempted to trespass on the land. Proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated by SDM who passed an order holding that Ombir and Somwati were in possession of the plot. That he challenged the order passed by the SDM by way of Criminal Revision Petition in Delhi High Court, which vide order dated 4.1.2005, stayed the order passed by the SDM. That notwithstanding stay order passed by Delhi High Court, police handed over possession of the plot to Ombir and his wife. That in a contempt petition filed in Delhi High Court, orders were passed on 16.3.2005 directing Ombir and Somwati to maintain status-quo. That he had filed a suit for possession, permanent and mandatory injunction. That on 27.3.2006, a compromise was entered into as per which he agreed to pay further sum of Rs.10 lacs to Somwati and Ombir. That he paid Rs.10 lacs to Somwati and Ombir who made categorical statements on oath admitting the compromise. That in terms of the compromise, suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 19.4.2006. That the accused persons i.e. Somwati and the petitioners had thereafter once again attempted to trespass in the property. That petitioners of Bail Application No.1542/2007 had obtained an electricity connection for the plot in question and on the basis of some false and fabricated documents had obtained sanction from MCD to construct on the plot. That the complainant was cheated, in that, had parted with nearly Rs.30 lacs to acquire the plot and accused persons had fabricated the documents to deny the title of the complainant.

(3.) Amarjit Singh and Surjit Singh, petitioners of Bail Application No.1542/2007 state that Ombir and Somwati sold the plot to them vide agreement to sell dated 15.2.2005. That far from being the cheaters, they had been cheated by Somwati and Ombir. They disclaim any past knowledge of either any transaction or litigation inter se the complainant and Somwati/Ombir.