Vikas Chadha v. State (Govt of NCT) of Delhi

1. Notice. Learned APP for the State, who appears on advance copy having been served, accepts notice.

2. Apprehending his arrest in a case registered against him and his wife Smt.Aarti Chadha vide FIR No.95/2017 dated 18.03.2017, PS Patel Nagar, Central District, Delhi under Section 420/406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short „IPC‟), the petitioner has 2017:DHC:6114 approached this court for granting him anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short „Cr.PC‟).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the anticipatory bail application of his wife, being Bail Appln. 1563/2017, was dismissed by this Court on 11th August, 2017. He submits that there is no reason as to why the investigation of this case cannot be completed without apprehending and arresting the petitioner. He submits that under Section 438 of Cr.PC there is a provision for grant of interim protection. He submits that the IO has not made compliance of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273.

4. He submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the property in question. He is not the signatory to the collaboration agreement dated 3rd February, 2016. He submits that in fact the wife of the petitioner is the owner of the property in question and she had entered into the collaboration agreement with the complainant and received the amount and the petitioner has nothing to do with the collaboration agreement or receipt of the payment.

5. Per contra, the request of the petitioner is vehemently opposed by the learned APP for the State. He submits that the petitioner was issued a notice by the IO on 25th August, 2017 but he failed to join the investigation. He submits that there are serious allegations against both of them i.e. the petitioner and his wife. He submits that though technically the wife of the petitioner is the owner of the property and signed the collaboration agreement with the complainant but there are specific allegations that the petitioner along with his wife Smt.Aarti Chadha had approached the complainant and entered into the transaction in question. He submits that at the time of collaboration agreement, the petitioner and his wife had assured the complainant that the property in question is free from all encumbrances i.e. sale, mortgage, gift, lease, family dispute, attachment, litigation, acquirement, notification etc. However, in December, 2016 when officials of M/s.Dewan Housing Finance Ltd. (in short „DHFL‟) visited, they informed him about mortgage of said property and outstanding liability of over Rs.[5] crores. He submits that to further cheat the complainant, a Sale Deed dated 07.01.2017 was executed by which the roof/terrace of the entire first floor with construction right of the second floor and third floor with further roof/terrace right up to sky for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/was sold to one Narender Kumar knowing fully well that the possession of the property was with the complainant. He submits that though the said sale deed was executed by the wife of the petitioner, being the recorded owner, yet the petitioner had all along been active participant in the transactions. He submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the purpose of the investigation. He submits that the petitioner and his wife have been absconding and attempt of the IO to locate and arrest them remained unsuccessful despite raids being conducted at their residence and at Banaras.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.

7. Pursuant to the Collaboration Agreement with the complainant by the petitioner and his wife, the complainant had raised and completed the construction of basement, stilt car parking, upper ground floor and first floor. The petitioner and his wife never disclosed that the property in question was already under mortgage with DHFL and a more than Rs.[5] crore was outstanding amount. The petitioner and his wife were to make the payment of balance amount of Rs.2,20,00,000/- to the complainant at the time of taking over the physical possession of the said property. The petitioner and his wife got the property constructed at huge cost of the complainant without making payment and by concealing the factum of mortgage to secure loan and huge outstanding amount and thereby cheated the complainant.

8. Here it will not be out of place to mention the concern shown by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in its various judgments while considering request for bail. Hon‟ble Supreme court in Parvinderjit Singh & Anr. v. State (U.T. Chandigarh) & Anr., 2008 (4) SCC 2873, held in para 17 as under: -

10. Keeping in view the serious nature of the offence committed and gravity of the accusation and the fact that investigation is at initial stage and that the petitioner along with his wife had received a huge amount of Rs.55,00,000/- from the complainant by making false representation to the complainant that the property is free from all sorts of encumbrances and the fact that they had subsequently sold the roof/terrace of the entire first floor with construction rights of the second floor and third floor with further roof/terrace rights up to sky to one Narender Kumar for a huge sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- by registered Sale Deed without making payment of Rs.2.[5] crores to the complainant and the fact that the petitioner is not joining investigation and is on the run and the submission of learned APP for the State that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to recover said amount of Rs.55 lac paid to the petitioner and his wife, I do not find any justifiable ground entitling the petitioner for grant of relief of anticipatory bail to him.

11. The application is dismissed.