PRAMOD KUMAR TIWARI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on these first applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioners Pankaj Dwivedi and Pramod Kumar Tiwari in Crime No.27/2018 registered by Police Station-Chandiya, District-Umaria (M.P.) under Sections 420 , 406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, petitioner Pankaj Dwivedi is an Advocate. Victim Chandradev Singh wanted to purchase an agricultural land. Petitioners Pankaj Dwivedi and Pramod Kumar Tiwari suggested agricultural land belonging to one Vipin Singh. It was agreed that victim Chandradev Singh would purchase Vipin Singh's land for Rs.4,50,000/- by registered sale-deed on 31.03.2015. On that date, an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was handed over to the petitioners Pankaj and Pramod for being given to Vipin Singh. However, since Patwari and Revenue Inspector did not appear before the Registrar, sale-deed could not be executed. Later, Vipin Singh told victim Chandradev Singh that since there is a dispute in his family, he does not want to sell his agricultural land. Vipin Singh also returned Rs.10,000/- to the victim Chandradev Singh. Seller of the land Vipin Singh has told the victim Chandradev Singh that apart from Rs.10,000/- he has not received any amount and remaining amount of Rs.4,40,000/- is with the petitioners. Meanwhile, petitioners Pankaj and Pramod returned Rs.50,000/- to the vicitm Chandradev Singh. Petitioners Pankaj and Pramod promised the victim Chandradev Singh that he could search any other convenient land and the remaining amount of Rs.3,90,000/- would be adjusted towards the purchase of that land. However, since the victim Chandradev Singh could not find any convenient land, he demanded the money back from the petitioners Pankaj and Pramod. However, they refused to return the money. Subsequently, a notice was sent to petitioners Pankaj and Pramod for returning the amount but they did not oblige.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is essentially a civil dispute but since, there is an impediment of limitation, this criminal complaint has been lodged. It has further been submitted that the first information report has been lodged after a delay of about two years and ten months.