RAJIV GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail; in case FIR No.1292 dtd. 23/10/2018 registered under Ss. 120-B, 420, 506 IPC at Police Station Jagadhri City, Districit Yamuna Nagar.

(2.) The allegation in the FIR is that the present petitioner along with seven others, constituted a joint family. The members of the joint family allured the complainant to make certain investment for purchase of a Company named 'Royal Wood Pvt. Ltd.', situated in State of Gujarat. It was assured that the petitioner would invest the money and the members of the joint family would manage that Company. Accordingly, the complainant invested crores of rupees and purchased that Company. As per the understanding between the complainant and the members of the joint family of the present petitioner, the charge of that Company was given to one of the members of the joint family, namely, Sushil Gupta. In the process, another member of the joint family, namely, Rakesh Gupta, the brother of the present petitioner, became Director of the Company. Thereafter, the members of the joint family misappropriated the assets of the said Company and obtained other loans by mortgaging the properties of the Company. As a result, the complainant was put under the liability of crores of rupees. Hence, the dispute erupted. When the matter was raised by the complainant then Rakesh Gupta along with his family members entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dtd. 29/9/2016, in which the said Rakesh Gupta owned and admitted all the misdeeds committed by him and his other family members and assured the complainant to compensate him and to repay the entire liabilities of the complainant. As a compensation for part of the liability, the said Rakesh Gupta and Sushil Gupta signed this Memorandum of Understanding; to the effect that there is a House No.1058, HUDA, Sector-17, Jagadhri; measuring about 310 square metres; which is in the name of the wives of five brothers in that joint family and that the said Rakesh Gupta and Sushil Gupta have been authorised by their wives and the wives of their other brothers; to transfer the said house in the name of the complainant. Accordingly, a recital was included in the Memorandum of Understanding dtd. 29/9/2016 that henceforth the complainant has become owner of the house and so only he shall have right to deal with that house. However, on one hand, the said Rakesh Gupta and Sushil Gupta had undertaken to transfer the said house in the name of the complainant; whereas; on the other hand; by colluding with all the members of the joint family, they have transferred the said house in the name of three other persons, who happen to be their protegees. Accordingly, FIR was got lodged by the complainant that he has been cheated by the members of the joint family, including the present petitioner, with deep collusion and in conspiracy. When he raised objection, he has been threatened with life.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if there is any promise to transfer the house in question in favour of the complainant then that promise is made only by the co-accused of the petitioner. The petitioner has never made any promise to transfer the said house in the name of the complainant. It is further submitted that there is no written power of attorney given qua the house in question; in favour of Rakesh Gupta and Sushil Gupta; to undertake to transfer of house in the name of the complainant. The petitioner is not even registered owner of the said house. It is further contended that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner as such. Furthermore, the petitioner is residing in Gujarat, therefore, he has no concern with the house in question or with the business of Royal Wood Pvt. Ltd. In the end, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was an earlier FIR lodged by the complainant; regarding the fraud committed to him qua the business of the Company. In that FIR, the petitioner has been released on anticipatory bail. Since one FIR has already been lodged, therefore, the second FIR for the same purpose is not maintainable.