NIKHIL KUMAR KUNDRA Vs. STATE(NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR No. 351/2015, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC'), registered by P.S. Jagat Puri, NewDelhi.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complaint was lodged by Prabhjot Singh/complainant alleging that on 25.03.2014, he purchased a shop out of the property bearing No. 35, ground floor, Gopal Park, Khureji, Delhi-110051, from one Suman Pahuja who executed a sale deed in his favour. One Deepak also purchased two rooms set out the said property via sale deed executed in his favour by Suman Pahuja on 09.05.2014 and since then they were in possession of the said property. However, on 10.03.2015, Deepak saw a notice pasted on the wall of the said property wherein it has been mentioned that the notice was pasted by the receiver appointed by the court for the attachment of the said property and the same was informed by him to the complainant. An inquiry was conducted from the Bank of Punjab & Sindh Bank regarding the said notice and it was informed to them that Ankita Haldar and Nikhil Kumar has obtained loan from the bank to the tune of Rs. 14,00,000/- after mortgaging the property in question. On their default in repaying the same, the bank has initiated such a process. It has been further alleged by the complainant that Ankita Haldar in conspiracy with Nikhil Haldar had forged and fabricated the documents of the said property to obtain the loan from the bank. In that regard, the complaint was filed under Section 420 IPC against the petitioner and hence, the present petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present FIR filed against the petitioner is false and fabricated; that on 22.07.2005, petitioner's father sold the said property to his daughter/ Shalini Chopra, who thereafter on 05.05.2011, sold the same property back to the petitioner in his wife's name/Ankita Haldar for Rs. 19,75,000/-;that for the purchase of the said property loan was obtained from the bank for Rs.14,50,000/-; that in the year 2010, the petitioners' father was in need of money so he had approached Narendra Pahuja for obtaining loan in cash, to meet his financial loss; that however Narendra Pahuja, fraudulently, got Agreement to sell, GPA and Affidavit prepared with regard to the said property, and obtained his father's signature, as he was illiterate, on the said documents fraudulently in return for loan provided by him to his father; that the entire original documents related to the said property is in the possession of his father and there is no entry in the name of Suman Pahuja even in the Government records for being the owner of the said property; that in the year 2014, Narender Pahuja and Vinod Khanna had approached petitioner and his father for purchasing the said property and they informed them about the loan on property; that as they were in need of money, they agreed to sell the property to them with a condition that the loan instalments on the said property would be paid by Narendra Pahuja and after adjustment of amount paid towards loan, sale deed would be executed and registered in favour of Suman Pahuja/wife of Narender Pahuja ; that Narendra Pahuja defied from paying the entire loan instalments and had only paid some instalments in cash to the petitioner; that in return the petitioner gave him the front portion of the said property on the ground floor; that even the constructions on the said property has been carried out by the petitioner and his father; that there is no change in the electricity meter, property tax record; that Narendra Pahuja has illegally encroached/trespassed in the back portion of the said property and allegedly sold it to the complainant; that there is no record to show as to how Suman Pahuja got converted the leasehold property into freehold property and therefore, no ingredient of Section 370 IPC is made out against him. Hence, the petition should be allowed.