Parveen Garg v. State & Anr.

1. The dispute arising in the present FIR pertains to a property bearing Plot No.11, Pocket-15A, Section 24, Rohini, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „property‟], which was initially allotted to one Mr. Daulat Singh, the grandfather of the complainant, Mr. Deepak Singh. As per facts, the said Mr. Daulat Singh sold the property to one Ms. Aruna Kaushik in December 1993, who in turn sold it to Mr. Satpal Grover in June 1996, who finally sold it to M/s Xilon Trading Private Limited [hereinafter referred “XTPL”] of which the applicant is a Director in September 1996 for Rs. 7,00,000/- [Rupees Seven Lakhs Only]. As per applicant, though the proof of the payment by XTPL is missing as the Bank involved has since closed, however, the documents qua the chain of the aforesaid transactions have already been provided by the applicant to the Investigating Officer [hereinafter referred to as I.O.] during the course of investigation.

2. When this application was listed before this Court for the first time on 27.07.2023, the learned senior counsels appearing for the applicant submitted that XTPL was the bona-fide purchaser of the property from the grandfather of the complainant and according to them the complainant came in possession of the property in the last couple of years only, although they were unable to give the exact date thereof.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the complainant, present in Court on that day, submitted that the complainant came to know in November 2019 that certain individuals, in connivance with Delhi Development Authority [hereinafter referred to as DDA], were attempting to trespass and claim ownership of the aforementioned property based on forged and fabricated documents. It was thereafter that the complainant lodged a complaint leading to the registration of the present FIR NO. 125/2022 under Sections 419/420/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Crime Branch, Delhi. This has led to filing of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking grant of anticipatory bail.

4. Thereafter, the learned APP appearing for the State submitted that though Mr. Daulat Singh, the initial allottee of the property in question left for his heavenly abode way back on 18.12.1997, however, the Conveyance Deed dated 21.07.2011 executed in favour of XTPL of which the applicant is a Director, reflects his name as the lessee therein and other documents before the DDA for getting the property freehold. It was also submitted that the applicant had withheld the Sanction Plan filed by XTPL sometime in 2007 as it was containing the signature of the same deceased Mr. Daulat Singh.

5. Accordingly, this Court, considering the checked history involved, was pleased to issue the following directions: “...in the interest of justice if the applicant appears to join the investigation before the concerned Investigating Officer for three consecutive days from 31.07.2023 to 02.08.2023 to cooperate with the Investigating Agency and make a concrete effort in divulging all the details with respect to the documents submitted by XTPL for getting the Sanctioned Plan during the years 2007-2009 and further qua the applications and affidavits seeking extension of time for construction filed by the same XTPL before the DDA also in the years 2007-2009 and lastly furnish a copy of all the relevant documents qua the disputed property in his power and possession or with XTPL. Needless to say, the Investigating Officer shall be free to proceed with further investigation, if required, in the above terms, in accordance with law.”

6. Today, learned senior counsels appearing for the applicant at the outset, submit that the applicant, despite being a 63-year-old senior citizen, has not only joined investigation but has also been participating in the proceedings as and when called for since before passing of the order dated 27.07.2023. It was then submitted that all documents showing the chain of transactions qua the property have already been handed over by the applicant to the I.O. and that though the complainant had instituted a suit for injunction against the XTPL and others qua this property since long but, had not sought any relief of declaration therein. It was also submitted though the applicant has also already made a subsequent complaint after registration of the present FIR against the complainant qua the property involved but no cross FIR has been registered by the Police yet and appropriate proceedings with respect to that which have been initiated under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court. It was lastly submitted that the persons involved in the sale/ purchase of the property in question have been examined by the I.O. which shows that the complainant is not the owner of the property and as on date XTPL is the purchaser and owner of concerned property as per the documents on record.

7. In support of their contentions, learned senior counsels for the applicant placed reliance upon Santosh vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) 9 SCC 714; Nandini Satpathy vs. P.L. Dani & Anr. (1978) 2 SCC 424; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Mahahrashtra & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 565; Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565; Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujrat & Anr. (2016) 1 SCC 152; Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40; Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51; Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (2020) 5 SCC 1; Ramesh Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2023 SCC OnLine SC 766; P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13 SCC 791 to submit that the aforesaid factors are sufficient enough for this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant under the facts and circumstances involved herein.

8. Notice was issued and Status Report was called for, which has since been filed before this Court.

9. Learned APP has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant primarily on the ground that that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required for finding out the source of the forged documents and involvement of DDA officials qua the missing files in their records and that if released, he may affect the witnesses and tamper with evidence.

10. Learned senior counsel for the complainant supporting the case of the State has also opposed the grant of bail as the applicant has been the beneficiary of the transaction all throughout and because the date of the FIR is predated to the subsequent complaint made by the applicant against the complainant. Reliance has been placed upon XXX vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. SLP (Crl.) 7188/2022, dated 30.09.2022; Maruti Nivrutti Navale vs State of Maharshtra & Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 235, to submit that the bail should not be granted in cases where custodial interrogation of the applicant is required.

11. This Court has heard the learned senior counsels for the applicant and the complainant and the APP for the State and gone through the various documents and judgements placed on record. Before proceeding further, this Court wishes to point out there is no clarity about the alleged suit instituted by the complainant or its present status this Court is refraining to comment and/ or draw any conclusion qua it.

12. A careful analysis of the facts before this Court reveal that the applicant is a Director of XTPL, who has the ownership document in its favour dating back from September 1996, i.e., almost 26 years as on the date of registration of the present FIR. Moreover, the present complainant has been unable to show any document in his favour either qua his ownership and/ or qua his possession from 1996. In the considered opinion of this Court the same is relevant at this stage as, admittedly, the original allottee, his grandfather expired way back on December 1997, almost 25 years ago (as on the date of registration of the present FIR). Interestingly, though the FIR was registered on 01.07.2022 but the notice qua the same was issued to the applicant only on 18.03.2023, i.e., after a gap of almost 8 months and there is no explanation as to why the complainant kept quiet for that period.

13. This Court also finds the prosecution is silent about the alleged documents showing the complete chain of transactions qua the property, right from the original allottee-grandfather of the complainant, Mr. Daulat Singh to the present owner, XTPL including few certified copies of few such documents which as on date reflects that XTPL is the owner of the property involved.

14. In fact a perusal of the Status Report reveals that XTPL purchased the property from its erstwhile seller, Mr. Satpal Grover in the year 1996 and the documents qua the applicant have already been handed over to the I.O.. Further, as per Status Report the said Mr. Satpal Grover upon examination has confirmed that he had purchased the property in June 1996 from one Ms. Aruna Kaushik and it was one Mr. Satish Chandra during his examination revealed that it was he who filed the documents in the year 2011.

15. It is also stated in the Status Report that both the applicant and his brother were in the process of locating and gathering all the other requested documents.