RAMESH SHRIWAS Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the petitioner Ramesh Shriwas in criminal case no. 15299/2017 pending in the Court of Shri Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 423 and 120-B of the IPC.

(2.) As per the case of the complainant, the disputed house belonged to complainant Indu Arya. The petitioner/accused Ramesh Shriwas has been the tenant of the complainant in the disputed house since 01.01.2014. The first rent agreement was executed on 01.01.2014 for a period of 11 months. Thereafter, it was renewed on 01.10.2015 till 31.08.2016. On 21.06.2017, the prosecutrix sent a notice to the petitioner for vacating the house; whereon, she received a notice from the petitioner; wherein, it was stated that the complainant had executed an agreement for sale of the disputed house in favour of petitioner Ramesh Shriwas in the presence of co-accused persons Rameshwar Shriwas and Chhutan Shriwas on 10.09.2015 and before that, the complainant had received in all, Rs. 25,00,000/- from the petitioner in cash on different dates, by way of earnest money. The complainant was flabbergasted because she had not executed any such agreement nor had she received any amount, by way of earnest money from the petitioner. She learnt that the petitioner in collision with co-accused persons Rameshwar Shriwas and Chhutan Shriwas, had forged aforesaid agreement. Thereafter, the complainant had High Court of Madhya Pradesh obtained a copy of the alleged agreement and got it examined by a private examiner of questioned documents, who opined that the purported signature of complainant Indu on the agreement were forged; therefore, she filed a private complaint.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant had indeed executed aforesaid agreement of sale of disputed house in favour of the petitioner and had received Rs. 25,00,000/- in cash; however, when she declined to execute registered sale deed, the petitioner filed a civil suit for specific performance of agreement of sale on 20.07.2017. By way of counter blast, the complainant filed this private complaint on 11.09.2017. The complainant had tried to get the petitioner forcibly evicted from the property; therefore, the petitioner had lodged an first information report on 01.08.2017 against the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited attention of the Court to judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sardarbai v. State of M.P. and another 2016 (1) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 233 . The petitioner has been in custody since 22.12.2017; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.