SHAJU GEORGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is the first accused in Crime No.770 of 2012 of Nedumangad Police Station, who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 342, 506(ii), 384 and 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C. seeks pre -arrest bail.

(2.) The allegations in short against the petitioner as per the complaint laid by the defacto complainant are as follows: The complainant got assignment of the property with a building therein from the petitioner herein. The complainant had agreed to re -convey the property to the petitioner when he offered Rs. 80 Lakhs more than the price for which the property was sold to the defacto complainant. The allegation is that the defacto complainant was asked to go over to the house of the petitioner herein on 24.4.2012 at about 3.30 p.m. on the promise that the sale consideration would be paid to him and the registration of the documents could be carried out. The defacto complainant was asked to bring all the original documents also. It is alleged that when the defacto complainant went over to the house of the petitioner herein, he was restrained by the henchmen of the petitioner herein and threatening his driver, the documents kept in his vehicle were forcibly taken away by the petitioner. The further allegation is that the defacto complainant was made to sign certain blank documents also.

(3.) The petitioner would say that the allegations are totally false and are without any basis at all. He would say that the allegations against him are with ulterior motive and made to get over the misdeeds committed by the defacto complainant. It is pointed out that the defacto complainant is a money lender. The defacto complainant agreed to advance Rs. Two Crores to the petitioner against a proper security. The defacto complainant infact wanted the petitioner to execute a sale deed in respect of the house and the compound of the petitioner, which is actually worth more than Rs.Ten Crores. The understanding was that when the money is repaid and the property would be re -conveyed. According to the petitioner, the understanding between the parties was that the so -called sale deed executed in favour of the defacto complainant was intended only to be a security for the loan transaction. The sale deed was thus executed on 8.8.2012 and the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.1.89 Crores in four instalments. Contrary to the understanding between the parties, when the defacto complainant tried to take forcible possession of the property from the petitioner, he instituted a suit before the court at Thiruvananthapuram for a declaration that the sale deed is invalid and for consequential injunction. An interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner. On coming to know of the order of injunction against him, the defacto complainant approached the petitioner and sought to settle the matter by agreeing to receive the money due to him with interest. He had also agreed to re -convey the property to the petitioner. The petitioner would say that on 24.4.2012 the defacto complainant had received the entire money as agreed from the petitioner and executed the deed in favour of the petitioner. He was however later told that the documents could be registered only after an additional 1.5 Crores was paid to the defacto complainant. When the petitioner refused to accede to the demand made by the defacto complainant, he along with his henchmen came to the house of the petitioner, and threatened him and wanted the documents back. When the neighbours gathered at the place hearing the commotion, the defacto complainant left the place. Petitioner also pointed out the illegality of the Commissioner of Police forwarding the complaint to Peroorkada Police Station which had no jurisdiction and the consequential steps taken by the police force. Pointing out that he had not committed any act which constituted an offence, he seeks pre -arrest bail.