JAVED SIDDIQUI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri S.K. Nigam, Advocate has filed his power on behalf of complainant, today in the Court, which is taken on record.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A.

(3.) Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the property in question is the factory situated in the industrial area of U.P.S.I.D.C. which was purchased by the company in which the informant and her husband were directors having equal shares. Further submission is that allegation in the statements of informant and her husband is that the factory in question was agreed to be sold for consideration of Rs.50 lacs and out of that amount only Rs.10 lacs was paid by the accused-applicant to the first informant through cheque while the instrument was to be executed after payment of rest of the amount of Rs.40 lacs within 45 days and for this transaction an agreement was executed on a stamp of Rs.100/-. As per the statements of informant and her husband, one another registered agreement was also executed in between the said parties regarding a nearby land of factory also. Further submission is that the crux of allegation against the accused-applicant is that the applicant never paid up the aforesaid remaining amount of Rs.40 lacs and without paying the total amount he tried to get the factory transferred from the U.P.S.I.D.C authority in his name and for this purpose forged documents were submitted by the present applicant. The contention of the counsel is that actually in this matter the applicant himself has suffered great economic loss as the whole amount of Rs.50 lacs has already been paid up by the applicant to the first informant or to say to her husband. Further submission is that actually the applicant is also in possession of the receipts which were issued in lieu of aforesaid payment. Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure No.9 at page no.71 to 78 of the application, which show the receipts and the acknowledgement of payment of the full amount. The receipts which were given to the applicant after the receiving of money and the letter written on a stamp of Rs.100/- addressed to Regional Manager, U.P.S.I.D.C., Kanpur Nagar acknowledging the receiving of the whole amount of Rs.50 lacs have been annexed and emphasised by the counsel. This letter bears signature of husband of first informant and has been addressed to the Regional Manager, U.P.S.I.D.C., Kanpur containing the admission of first informant's husband that he had sold the factory/plot No.D-1 Industrial Area, Site No.1, Raniya Kanpur to the applicant for a consideration of Rs.50 lacs and received money as noted hereinafter i.e. Rs.10 lacs on 16.01.2013 at the time of notary through Cheque No.000041 dated 20.01.2013 Bank of Baroda, Ashok Nagar, Kanpur and Rs.20 lacs on 5.6.2013 in cash through receipt and Rs.10 lacs on 18.7.2013 through receipt and Rs.10 lacs on 4.9.2013 in cash. This is also written in this letter that Mr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta had received full and final payment in consideration of the aforesaid factory and there was no balance left as due and that he had handed over possession on the spot and there will be no objection on behalf of Sandeep Gupta, the husband of first informant, if the factory is transferred in favour of applicant. Much emphasis was laid by the counsel on the fact that the signatures or the genuineness of receipts or the letter have not been disputed by the first informant. Further contention is that the lame explanation offered by the first informant with regard to the aforesaid papers indicating the receipt of the full payment is, that on a particular day, when the first informant had to go to the Registrar's office, few documents including the aforesaid receipts and letter etc. were prepared at home by the first informant and her husband in anticipation and expectation of the execution of registered deed and also in expectation of payment of the aforesaid money and all these documents were also carried to the Registrar's office by first informant's husband. But there in the Registrar's office the applicant some how stealthily stole away the aforesaid documents and misused the same later on. Contention is that the explanation furnished by the first informant is not only puerile and insipid but is also highly implausible and no prudent man can ever stomach such kind of explanation. Further submission is that actually the first informant itself has gone back on her words and is now trying to squeeze out money from the applicant and is refusing to abide by the conditions of the agreement. Argument is that the very fact of payment of aforesaid amount to the first informant, which also stands substantiated by the aforesaid receipts and acknowledgement letter as have already been placed before this Court, would manifestly demonstrate that it cannot be said that the applicant was having any criminal intention to either cheat the first informant or to cause any economic loss to her or her husband. To the contrary the applicant himself has been at the receiving end and has been a sufferer because of the high handedness of the first informant and her husband. It is further submitted that the offences levelled against the applicant are triable by the court of Magistrate. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.7.2015 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.