Full Text
BAILAPPLN. 740/2014
SAROJMARWAH
Represented by:
Represented by:
Petitioner Mr. G.K. Bharti and Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocates.
Respondent Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with SI Uma
Datt, PS Mangolpuri.
Mr. Bharat Gupta, Advocate for the Complainant.
06.10.2015
ORDER
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in case bearing FIR No. 843/2013 registered at Police Station Mangolpuri, Delhi, for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPG.
2. Vide Registered Sale Deed dated 19.05.2009, the petitioner sold a part of the property bearing No.51/4B, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi, to the complainant, namely, Rakesh Kumar and his wife Pallavi Sharma, for a total consideration of Rs.86,00,000/- (Eighty Six Lacs). BAILAPPLN. 740/2014 Page 1 of[4] 2015:DHC:10664
3. It is not in dispute that when the aforesaid property was sold to the complainant, the same was already mortgaged and was not free from all encumbrances, still said registered Sale Deed has been executed, whereby mentioned that the property wasfree from all encumbrances.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalfofthe petitioner submits that in the Sale Deed it is mentioned that all the original documents were handed over to the complainant and vacant possession ofthe property in question was also given to them. But the fact remains that the property was in possession of Bank of Maharashtra as the petitioner and her family members had taken two loans, i.e., term loan of Rs.1.65 Crores and cash credit facility for an amount ofRs.6.09 Crores, against the property in question and other parts of the said property. Thereafter, when the complainant realized ofbeing cheated, he made a complaint to the police which culminated into FIR mentioned above.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant approached the Court first and thereafter filed the complaint belatedly and that the dispute is of civil nature, therefore, the same cannot betried inthecriminal jurisdiction.
6. Moreover, the petitioner is 68 years old, she is a cancer patient and suffering problems with multiple organs and is bed ridden. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and the medical condition ofthe petitioner, she maybe released on anticipatory bail.
7. Itis an admitted fact that vide order dated 04.02.2014, the petitioner was released on anticipatory bail for aperiod of15 days with adirection to BAILAPPLN. 740/2014 Page 2of[4] join the investigation as and when asked by the Investigating Officer and shall not temper with investigation during this period. The petitioner was further directed to file latest medical reports of her illness, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 03.03.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, who also recorded that the petitioner was directed to file latest medical reports, but she failed to do so. Thereafter, another application seeking anticipatory bail was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 15.03.2014. Thus, she neverjoined the investigation.
8. Moreover, the aforesaid Sale Deed was executed by the petitioner on the false averments that the property in question was free from all encumbrances and accordingly, taken the money from the complainant. It is not in dispute that the petitioner approached this Court and vide order dated 03.04.2014, it was directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner. But the fact remains that the petitioner has cheated the complainant, she has not made any effort to satisfy the complainant despite the matter having been referred to the mediation, which failed on 02.05.2015.
9. Keeping in view the facts that the complainant has been cheated by the petitioner, who received an amount ofRs.86,00,000/- (Eight Six Lacs) in the year 2009 and the petitioner and her family members had taken heavy amount from the Bank, which the petitioner would not be able to repay and that there are cases against the husband and son ofthe petitioner, therefore, I am not inclined to allow the present petition. BAILAPPLN. 740/2014 Page 3of[4]
10. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts recorded above and the criminal background ofthe petitioner and her family members, the present petition is dismissed.
OCTOBER 06, 2015 sb BAILAPPLN. 740/2014 SURESHKAIT, J Page 4 of[4]