SANDHYA MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR are absolutely false. It is argued that though, the petitioner executed a sale-deed in favour of the complainant for a house situated at Delhi and in lieu of that, the complainant paid rupees eighty lac in cash and 3850 gms of gold, worth rupees one crore twenty lac, total rupees two crore to the petitioner but due to some legal hurdles, the disputed house could not be transferred in the name of the complainant and due to some misunderstanding, this FIR has been lodged against the petitioner by the complainant levelling false allegations. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, the sale-deed in respect of aforesaid house was executed way back in the year 2015, but later on, the petitioner paid all the money and gold to the complainant up to 2018 and the dispute between both of them was settled, however, the complainant with the intention to harass the petitioner filed this FIR levelling false allegations against her.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already appeared before the I.O. for the purpose of interrogation and the I.O. had thoroughly interrogated her, therefore, her custodial interrogation is not required. It is, thus, prayed that the petitioner may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.