Akhil Kakar v. State

1. This is an application filed under Section 482 Cr.p.C. by complainant Ajay Khurana for cancellation of interim protection granted to the petitioner Akhil Kakar in FIR no. 537/2018, under Section 420/34 IPC, PS Karol Bagh, Delhi. 2019:DHC:7093

2. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld. APP that Petitioner/accused and his father Ramesh Kakar have been granted interim protection by this Court on the ground of settlement dated 24th August, 2019. As per the said settlement, petitioner was to make the total payment of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- to the complainant towards full and final settlement of all accounts, disputes and issues. It is submitted that accused Ramesh Kakar had issued cheque bearing no. 66482 dated 16.11.2019 amounting to Rs. 30,00,000/- as first instalment in favour of the complainant which on presentation dishonoured due to „Insufficient fund‟. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the present application for cancellation of interim protection of the petitioner/accused Akhil Kakar be allowed in the interest of justice.

3. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for petitioner/accused has argued that interim protection should not be withdrawn as he was granted the same on merits and not on the basis of compromise.

4. I have considered the rival submissions. I have asked Ld. Counsel for the petitioner whether he intends to argue on the main bail application as well. He, however, submitted that he will confine his arguments on the application for cancellation of interim protection filed by the respondent.

5. Perusal of record reveals that vide order dated 01.05.2019, petitioner/accused Akhil Kakar was granted interim protection and the relevant portion of order dated 01.05.2019 runs as under:- “As per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant-purported gullible purchaser of a property, walked into the father of the applicant and entered into an Agreement to Sell for the purchase of an immovable property, and, there under, paid Rs. 90,00,000/- in cash. It comes to be pointed out that demonetisation took place on 09.11.2016. In para 5 of the bail application, the applicant has also specifically averred that the complainant was having long term relationship with his father and having money lending and financial transactions and that the applicant‟s father repaid the entire outstanding amount, the principal and the interest, through bank transactions from 10.02.2017 to 14.02.2018. FIR is however, totally silent on such a material fact, if, it is so. Mr. Karyal, Ld. APP on instruction from IO SI Raj Kumar present in the court, submits that the case diary of the IO does not reflect anything on the facts as have come to be stated in para 5 of the bail application. Suffice, it would be to observe, the FIR was lodged on 24.12.2018. Let a status report be filed two days before the adjournment date. Till then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant. Applicant shall however join the investigations as and when called for by the IO. At this stage, Ld. Senior counsel for the complainant, on instructions, submits that the complainant is not averse to resolve the matter amicably to which, Ld. Counsel for the applicant readily joins. In the view thereof, meantime, the parties are also referred to Delhi High Court mediation and Conciliation Centre (Samadhan) for 07.05.2019 at 3.30 p.m.

6. Thereafter, the case was taken up on 02.08.2019 and 27.08.2019. The case was settled in Mediation and it is reflected in the order dated 27.08.2019 and on the said ground, interim order was continued. The said order runs as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that settlement has been arrived between the parties for an amount of Rs. 1,00,50,000/-, and first instalment is to be paid on 16.11.2019. Copy has been given to learned APP. Ld. APP for the State seeks time to verify the same. List on 08.01.2020. Interim order to continue.”

7. Perusal of record, thus, reveals that the matter was amicably resolved vide settlement deed dated 24th August, 2019 arrived at between complainant and accused Mr. Ramesh Kakar. However, terms and conditions of the above settlement deed were not adhered to. The relevant para 5 of the settlement deed runs as under:- “that the first party along with his Advocate shall appear before the Hon‟ble Delhi High court at the time of the hearing/s on the anticipatory bail applications of party of Second Part and his son namely Akhil Kakar, bearing Bail Application NO. 1229/2019 and Bail Application no. 990/2019, pending before the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court and listed for hearing on 27.08.2019 and both the parties will make joint request to Hon‟ble court to extend the interim protection granted to party of Second Part and his son namely Akhil Kakar on their anticipatory bail applications for any date after 16.11.2019 i.e. date meant for First instalment of above settlement amount. On clearance/payment of first instalment of Rs. 30,00,000/-; both the parties shall pray before the Hon‟ble High court to grant anticipatory bail to Party to Second Part Mr. Ramesh Kakar and his son namely Akhil Kakar in connection with FIR No. 537/2018 under Section 420/34 IPC registered at PS Karol Bagh.”

8. Perusal of the record reveals that as per settlement deed dated 24.08.2019 it was agreed that on clearance/payment of first instalment of Rs. 30,00,000/-, both the parties shall pray to the court to grant anticipatory bail to accused Ramesh Kakar and his son Akhil Kakar. Since the petitioner has failed to adhere to the terms and condition of the settlement deed as the cheque amounting to Rs. 30,00,000/- given by Ramesh Kakar to the complainant in lieu of settlement has been dishonoured on account of „funds insufficient‟, interim protection granted to the petitioner/accused Akhil Kakar stands withdrawn.

9. Application is accordingly disposed of.

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 990/2019 List on 08.01.2020.

BRIJESH SETHI, J DECEMBER 18, 2019 Ak