DAVINDER BHADANA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Davinder Bhadana has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') for grant of regular bail to him in case FIR No.198 dated 06.04.2017 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and also under Section 204 IPC (which was added subsequently) registered at Police Station Suraj Kund, District Faridabad. A prayer has also been made for setting aside order dated 01.06.2018, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail has been dismissed.

(2.) Mr. S. K. Garg Narwana, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case, whereas he was not involved and no offence is made out against him. The FIR has been registered just to harass the petitioner. There is delay of more than two years in lodging of the FIR, which has not been explained. The complainant and the petitioner are brothers. The allegations in the FIR relate to the period from June-July, 2014 to 03.04.2015. It has been mentioned in the FIR that the complainant received a legal notice on 11.01.2017 and, thereafter, he came to know about the illegal act and conduct relating to agreement to sell dated 15.12014. Learned counsel also submits that even the complaint was made to the police after a period of more than two months from the date of receipt of legal notice dated 11.01.2017. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complainant has also filed a civil suit on 24.12015 and FIR has been registered subsequently after a delay of more than one and a half year which is abuse of process of law. The present FIR is the counter-blast to FIR No.649 dated 13.10.2016 under Sections 323, 506, 427 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Suraj Kund, Faridabad, which was got registered by the petitioner against the complainant and his family members. The petitioner has paid an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- as earnest money out of total sale consideration of Rs. 76,00,000/- to the complainant and possession of the land in dispute was also handed over to the petitioner and one Ranjit. In FIR No.647 dated 13.10.2016, the challan has been presented against the complainant and his family members. Learned senior counsel further submits that the criminal shape has been given to a civil dispute and the present FIR has been lodged just to put pressure upon the petitioner to settle the dispute pending before the Civil Court. Even in the reply filed in the civil suit, it has been admitted by the complainant that the property in dispute has been sold out to the present petitioner and Ramjeet Singh and possession has already been handed over to them. In said civil suit, the old numbers have been mentioned, whereas in the present FIR, new numbers have been mentioned as these numbers were allotted after consolidation proceedings. After execution of the above said agreement to sell dated 15.12014, one complaint was also filed by the wife of the complainant against the petitioner alleging outraging of modesty before Women Cell, Police Station NIT, Faridabad, which was inquired into by the police and allegations were found to be false. Learned senior counsel further submits that it has been alleged in the FIR that there are two different agreements to sell, where more amount than the actual has been mentioned. It has been done by showing the photocopy of the agreement to sell, whereas the petitioner is having original copy of the agreement to sell. It has been well settled in various judgments of this Court as well as Hon'ble the Apex Court that with the advance technology, signatures can be picked up from one page/place and can be affixed at some other page/place. It is not the case of the complainant that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. Said agreement to sell was attested by two attesting witnesses namely Narinder and Ranbir Singh, which shows that agreement to sell was proved beyond any doubt. Said witnesses have been released on ad interim anticipatory bail and thereafter, the interim orders passed in their favour have been made absolute. Learned counsel submits that anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad only on the ground that the petitioner had failed to arrive at an amicable settlement and nothing has been said on merits. At the end, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that under the directions/orders passed by this Court, the petitioner has surrendered before the trial Court and he now is in custody. The offence is triable by Magistrate and no purpose would be served by keeping him in custody as not only at the time of pendency of bail application before the lower court, the petitioner was ready to settle the dispute with the complainant, who is his brother but still he is ready to settle the dispute, in case he returns amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-, which has actually been paid by the petitioner. It is not the petitioner but the complainant who did not agree for settlement. The wrong finding has been given by the lower court while declining bail. In support of his arguments, learned senior counsel has relied upon judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in cases Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 RCR(Cri) 126 and Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2014) 2 RCR(Cri) 416.

(3.) Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State of Haryana has opposed the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not in custody when this petition was filed and also that serious allegations are there against him. It has also been submitted by learned State counsel that the petitioner has approached this Court for grant of regular bail, whereas he has not availed the remedy of regular bail before the lower court and this petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.