SAMIR SOOD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.145 dated 09.10.2020 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station DLF, Sector-2, District Gurugram.

(2.) Petitioner is a real estate broker. The FIR was got registered by the power of attorney of Anil Kumar Garg. Complainant claimed himself to be NRI and permanent resident of USA. He is owner of a plot measuring 300 sq. yards in Sushant Lok-II, Gurugram. Petitioner approached him and assured him to get healthy sale consideration for the plot. Petitioner informed the complainant that the plot in question can be sold out for Rs.1.77 crores. Complainant agreed for the sale. Petitioner paid an amount of 8 lacs in cash towards earnest money. Other conditions were also settled.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not find a willing purchaser for an amount of Rs.1.77 crores, rather found a purchaser for an amount of Rs.1.5 crores and the complainant was accordingly informed. Complainant gave his assent to go further with the deal. As per instructions of the complainant, an agreement was prepared with the complainant in which Mohan Singh Assi was shown as purchaser. The said agreement was taken to USA and the complainant signed the same and the petitioner signed as a witness. Agreement to sell dated 28.04.2018 was signed by the complainant on 05.05.2018. Learned Senior Counsel sought to prove the visit of the petitioner to USA for getting the signature of the complainant with reference to his passport, entries of departure on 02.05.2018 and arrival in India on 10.05.2018. Learned Senior Counsel further relied upon General Power of Attorney dated 19.07.2018 in favour of the petitioner which was executed by the complainant in USA. GPA was authorized in USA and was witnessed by two persons in USA. The said document was countered signed by Indian High Commission at USA and thereafter, same was embossed and registered in Gurugram. As per recital in the agreement to sell dated 28.04.2018, the sale deed could have been executed either in the name of the vendee or in favour of his assignee. The vendee prepared to get the property purchased in the name of Smt. Superna Nagpal Chopra and signed himself as a witness to the sale deed. An amount of Rs.70 lacs was paid from the account of vendee and an amount of Rs.80 lacs was paid from the account of Superna Nagpal Chopra. The amount could not be deposited in favour of the complainant and the same was deposited in the account of the petitioner as the complainant did not have any account in India. The request was made by the petitioner for opening the account in India as the tax could not be deposited for want of account of the complainant. Petitioner sent form of Corporation Bank of Gurugram to the complainant for signature and got the same signed as well, but the bank refused to open the account for want of attestation by Indian High Commissioner. Complainant could not move to Indian High Commission due to some health issue. Complainant directed the petitioner orally to purchase alternate property from the said amount. Petitioner entered into a deal with Manoj Kumar (seller) and others in order to purchase 1.10 acre of land. Complainant agreed to the aforesaid transaction. Earnest money of Rs.50 lacs was paid by the petitioner to the seller. Agreement to sell dated 30.06.2019 was executed. All these facts have been verified by ACP, Gurugram in first inquiry. Complainant was informed by the petitioner to deposit tax on this sale proceed(s), but for want of Aadhaar and Pan Cards, the same could not be done. Penalty of Rs.7 lacs was imposed by the department. Complainant asked the petitioner whether he would use his address for preparing Aadhaar and Pan Cards. The needful could be done after the deal, therefore, Aadhaar and Pan Cards were not used by the petitioner in execution of sale deed. Petitioner deposited tax @ 23.3% of the value of sale consideration on receipt of Aadhaar and Pan Cards along with penalty. An amount of Rs.42 lacs was deposited as TDS in the name of the complainant on 31.10.2019. Petitioner asked the complainant for the brokerage, but the complainant did not pay the same, rather GPA was cancelled. New GPA was executed in the name of P.K. Gupta. A civil suit for recovery was filed by the petitioner which is pending. Now GPA filed complaint against the petitioner and two other persons. First complaint was inquired into by the police and no offence was found to have been committed. The inquiry was under the supervision of ACP, Gurugram. Thereafter, another complaint was filed only against the petitioner as the vendee of second agreement to sell had surrendered to the wishes of the complainant. Petitioner showed his willingness to deposit the sale proceeds and even offered two cheques in a sum of Rs.50 lacs each out of total sale consideration of Rs.1.5 crores. An amount of Rs.8 lacs had already been paid to the complainant and out of remaining amount of Rs.1.42 crores, an amount of Rs.42 lacs already stood paid through TDS. For remaining amount of Rs.1 crore, the aforesaid cheques were offered by the petitioner.