PANKAJ KANJIBHAI KACHHADIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Hardik Soni, the learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

(2.) By way of the present application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered at the Chalala Police Station, Amreli being No.11193013230300 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Ss. 406, 420 and 114 of the IPC.

(3.) The learned advocate Mr. Virat Popat appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that it is alleged in the complaint that a sale-deed was duly executed between the present applicant-accused and the erstwhile owner of the land somewhere in the year 2016 and some of the amount of sale consideration as mentioned in the sale-deed has yet not been paid by the applicant-accused and with these kind of allegations, the present complaint has been registered after a lapse of seven years. Learned advocate Mr. Popat has further submitted that the present complaint is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law filed just with a view to harass the present applicant-accused because the present applicant- accused had purchased the property somewhere in the year 2016 by paying the amount as agreed upon by both the parties for which a registered sale deed also came to be executed on 8/6/2015 in the office of the Sub-Registrar in the presence of the applicant-accused, complainant and the erstwhile owner of the property. Learned advocate Mr. Popat has also submitted that it is clearly mentioned in the sale-deed itself by the vendor that the entire amount of sale consideration has been paid by the vendee. Learned advocate Mr. Popar has also submitted that the complainant has also filed a suit before the competent Civil Court and the said suit is pending before the Civil Court. It is further submitted that the applicant-accused has filed reply in the said suit specifically stating that before execution of the sale deed, the entire amount of sale consideration was paid to the erstwhile owner through four different cheques, the details of which, is clearly mentioned in the sale deed. It is also stated in the said reply by the applicant that out of the four cheques, two cheques were deposited by the erstwhile owner and other two cheques were lost by the original owner and, therefore, the original owner asked the applicant-accused to pay the outstanding amount in cash which was accordingly paid by the applicant-accused in cash. It is further submitted that if there was any outstanding amount to be paid by the applicant-accused, then why no action was taken by the complainant side at the relevant point of time and have waited for such a long period of seven years because the cheques were issued in the year 2016. Learned advocate Mr. Popat has further submitted that it is the specific case of the complainant that they themselves have appeared before the office of the Sub-Registrar and executed the sale deed. It is further submitted that a declaration in the form of acceptance of the amount has also been signed by the complainant side at the time of execution of the sale deed. Under the circumstances, learned advocate Mr. Popat appearing for the applicant prays that the applicant may be enlarged on bail on any suitable terms and conditions.