TARA CHAND Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these applications, the complainant seeks modification of the order dated 5th March, 2015 whereby the petitioners/non-applicants were granted anticipatory bail by this Court. The allegations in FIR No.313/2014 under Sections 420/406 IPC was registered at Police Station Kirti Nagar pursuant to an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the complaint of respondent No.2 Hitesh Kothari are that on 20th April, 2007 Champat Lal Babu Lal Jain a partner in M/s.Suraj Constructions Vijaywada (AP) came to his house and represented that he was constructing a mall-cum-multiplex 'Ripple Mall' at Vijaywada and that the prices would go very high so the complainant would earn high profits if he purchased some area in the mall. Accordingly, for a consideration of 7 crores 15 lakhs the complainant was allotted a total area of 8000 square feet and an agreement in this regard was entered into on 20th April, 2007. The respondent No.2 paid the entire agreement amount of 7 crores 15 lakhs from 20 th April, 2007 to 3rd March, 2010 and also gave a sum of 2 crores 38 lakhs as loan to Champat Lal however on completion of the mall, the accused refused to transfer the space provided ad-measuring 8000 square feet in the name of the complainant. During the hearing of the application of Champat Lal, he filed certain documents purported to be signed by the complainant regarding cancellation of the agreement signed by the complainant with M/s.Suraj Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and allotment of share to M/s.Fuso Glass India Pvt. Ltd. for a sum of 9.5 crores. These documents were submitted by Champat Lal Jain are the bone of contention because the petitioner/ complainant states that the documents are forged and fabricated whereas private respondents claim that they are genuine. Investigation also revealed that Hitesh Kothari had paid a sum of 9 crores, 64 lakhs and 69 thousand to M/s.Fuso Glass India Pvt. Ltd. and the private respondents had issued share certificates of the said amount in favour of the complainant whereas the complainant denied purchasing the share certificates of M/s.Fuso Glass India Pvt. Ltd. As noted above, the FSL report finally stated that the questioned signatures of the complainant matched with his specimen and admitted signatures.

(2.) The petitioners were granted bail for the reason and with the following conditions:- "24. Having considered the entire gamut of the matter as well as the grounds of quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting-aside the order dated 27th October, 2014 and 3rd December, 2014, there is a merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, coupled with the fact that the petitioners and the complainant are related to each other and being a family dispute, in view of undertaking given by the petitioners to join the proceedings and to produce all the necessary documents required by the Investigating Agency, without deciding anything on merit, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bails to them in view of peculiar facts and circumstances in the matter; it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of 50,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer (IO) and further, the said relief is being given to them, subject to the following conditions:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the petitioners were directed to submit a bank guarantee for a sum of 9,56,75,000/- on the basis of the purported cheating which had come to light at that stage. Later it was revealed that the applicant not only suffered a loss because of the non- compliance of the agreement but also forged and fabricated documents were prepared and money purportedly given as loan was stated to be invested in shares on account whereof also the applicant suffered serious loss. He thus prays that the order granting bail be modified and the petitioners be directed to deposit a further amount of 9,56,75,000/- before this Court.