ALKA GUPTA Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application on behalf of the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in case F. I. R. No. 170 of 2006, under Sections 424/467/468/471 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station New Friends Colony.

(2.) AS per the F. I. R. , the property bearing No. A-221, New Friends colony, New Delhi is owned by Upma Gupta, w/o Late Sh. Gupta, Anand Gupta, Alka gupta and Dr. Anoop Gupta on the basis of seven agreements to sell dated 3. 7. 1994 in respect of their separate portions. F. I. R. further speaks that the aforesaid property was purchased from Deepak Badwar and Kiran Badwar who appointed the complainant as General Attorney of Deepak Badwar and Kiran Badwar along with Bhushan Kumar Gupta. F. I. R. further goes on to say that the complainant has learnt that Dr. Anoop Kumar Gupta, has forged power of attorney in conspiracy with his wife Alka Gupta, the petitioner herein, claimed to be executed by the complainant and Bhushan Kumar Gupta and on the strength of that power of attorney, the petitioner approached Delhi Development Authority and got a conveyance deed fraudulently in their favour. Thus according to the complainant, the petitioner has committed aforesaid offences.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that there is no evidence to indicate that this petitioner has forged the General Power of attorney. He further urged that FSL report does not clearly speaks to this effect. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute relating to the property is of civil nature and that multifarious litigation is pending between the parties, they being closely related to each other and even status quo orders were granted by the High Court in respect of the property in question. He further urged that there are cross F. I. R. s registered against each other and this case is the result of vengeance between the parties. He further argued that the F. I. R. has been registered after ten years of the existence of such documents and that the petitioners have been in possession of the said property since 29. 4. 1994.