NARINDER SINGH NARANG Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.87/2017 under Sections 420/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Chitranjan Park. Status report is on record.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties including the counsel for the complainant and have examined the file. Contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely named in the FIR. The complainant was not cheated in any manner by the petitioner. The dispute between the parties primarily is a civil dispute. No transaction regarding sale of the property in question had taken place with the complainant. The sale deed in question was executed by the petitioner in favour of BDR Builder Private Limited as a collateral 'security' for a loan transaction. Learned Senior counsel pointed out several SMSs where the complainant had asked the petitioner to pay 'interest'. It is further urged that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the complainant as the property in question was not sold to him by the petitioner.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the property in question was sold by the petitioner to M/s BDR Builders & Developers Private Limited vide sale deed dated 12.01.2015. M/s BDR Builders Private Limited further sold the property in question to the complainant Sachin Jain and his wife Mrs.Renu Jain by a registered sale deed dated 20.07.2015 for '2.15 crore. The complainant's case is that the property in question was let out to the petitioner's wife Ravinder Kaur w.e.f. 01.08.2015 vide registered lease deed dated 29.07.2015 on monthly rent of '62,500/-. Despite that, the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell dated 202016 with one Subhash Arora and received a sum of '1.10 crore as part consideration. The suit filed by him for possession against Ravinder Kaur in Saket Court has since been decreed in his favour. In the proceedings, it was categorically admitted by Ravinder Kaur that she was a tenant in the said property and rent of '6,25,000/- equivalent to ten months rent was given to the complainant, Sachin Jain, before the court.