KESHAV SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arguments heard.

(2.) The facts, in brief, of the instant case are that on 29.11.2016, the complainant Varun Mohan gave a written complaint in the Police Station Punjabi Bagh. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant was working as IT consultant and was having cash of Rs. 45 lakhs at his home. On 08.11.2016, the Government discontinued the old currency notes of Rs.500 and Rs.1000. Due to demonetization, the complainant wanted to deposit Rs.45 lakhs in his bank account maintained with Canara Bank but he was scared of going alone with such a huge amount. The complainant contacted his acquaintance Keshav Sharma (accused/petitioner-herein) and asked him to accompany the complainant to deposit the money. It was further alleged that accused Keshav told the complainant that the Manager of the bank was known to him and he assured that he would deposit the money at the time of closing i.e. around 8 p.m. Accused Keshav told the complainant that he would come within a day or two for depositing of money. On 14.11.2016, accused Keshav told the complainant to meet him in midway and by that time, accused would send 3-4 persons who would give security. Accused Keshav and his friend Manish met the complainant at Punjabi Bagh Red light and sat in his car. Accused Keshav asked the complainant to give the money on loan but he insisted on depositing in the bank. On the direction of accused Keshav, the complainant took his car near Punjabi Bagh Gurudwara and stopped there. Thereafter, Manish and Keshav showed pistols to the complainant and the money was robbed. 3-4 boys were called by them, including one Rana, and bags containing cash was handed over to him.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/accused has argued that the narration of incident as alleged by the complainant is false. The complainant is well known to the petitioner and he himself called him to come and help him in depositing the money in the bank. Thereafter, something happened between the complainant and the petitioner which was later on given the colour of robbery, whereas it was not the case of robbery rather it is a money dispute between the parties.