Sanjay Saxena v. Manish Gupta

7.. 7., 7Vinee:t PS Ahandyihar..7. ' 7,Mr.JDayanRjrishn ^ ^ V; 7 - /, 77^. Siddharth Aggarwal,Mr.Nikhil '/ 7 7.' ■ {7-; 7'-^^ '7':■:.-7, >/,;-7-'7/■ '■P^M^and ^Ms.7Akashi,'.-,Advs, for -r: 7'■'■■ •77; 7.; ■7'^-^.,7-;' 7;- - - - complainant' ■ ■ /■. '7. ■7;7'7.;." ^7 CORAM: -.7'- ■ ■■7/:-7."■.■77,7;- ' 7-„"i:...7..7-'/77,7: 7-7' 7^77,77'•.• HON'BEjE.MR;^STIGEA.K7PATH^ ' '"7..■ ■•7.: ORPER.,;;77' - 7' -7-''" ■' ■7''777 ^ ^.[7] % a[2].1ll20W; - Petitioners are husband and wife. They se^ek'anticipatory bail inFIR 2016:DHC:8732 - No.l48/2bl[5] uiider Sections 120B/406/420/506,IPC registered at police ■J ■ - Judge and also the \wit petition in this Court for quashing the Flk/ In the not complied with their offers^, V, It is borne out from the records that a memorandum ofunderstandingV. dated 26^ March, 2015. was entered into between the,petitioners and the ' complainant -Mr. Manish rGiipta on. 26^^ March,.2015, whereby they confirmedhayingreceived^1,66,00,000/^ from the complainantMr.Manish Gupta and agreedtorepay the same to,himininstalments, as detailedinp^ra;^ 3 ofthe said agreement, inasmuch^30,00,000/- paid at the time,ofexecution, of said agreement, However, petitioners have not honoured this agreement,: rior have honoured their undertaking, given in the court ■ in aforesaid ^ proceediilgs.-'.'... -( ^ -.v • Qn21 July, 2016,petitioners hadhiade,a categorical statement inthe ~ present proceedings that fhey ^ill clear the entire outstanding amount.of ^1,31,0^,000/- on or before 2"^November, 2016.Inview ofthis statement^ matter was adjoumed for today.:It was made clear that in case the amount; ' \ • j ''r ■ J n as assured, is not paid to coniplairiarit/respondent no.2 by the next date of >;' heating,arguments on merits would be he^^^ ?i,31,00,0()0/- has not beenpaifd tbday; instead only ?2O,0O,OOOA has been offered.. Accordingly, I,. 1 ' senior n counsel for the petitioners, complainant and learned additional public prosecutor.', ' 'V '" A, Learned,senior counsel the petitionershas yehemently contended -n,:,., that FIR is based on Talse, fnyolous, baseless arid fictitious allegations.. Coruplainant has'alleged in the FIR that, petitioner Sanjay Saxena had assured him that he would sell 151 units on 3% corimiission and had taken -^h66,G0,0,0.0/(- as advance ripriimissiori. It4s submitted that such a deal isV -, ^' 'hot l<i]io\^ in the commercial world as the cortimission becomes payable only after ihe deafis finalized and sale proceeds are rpalized. Itis further: nn ' ' A'-, ■- v-:" ' A contended that disputes betweentheparties arepurely ofcivilnature.:: contra, learned APp arid learned senior counsel for the. section420 420^ 506 and 406IPG are attracted fromperusal oftheFIR.jf is submitted that by flaunting high corinections with influential persons iricluding cabinet ministers petitiqner Sarijay assured that he Would find V A 'buyers for 151 residential.units,in the project constructed and developed by -, the complainantibiown as'Fusion Homes'and will sell them subjectto him being paid commission of■3% and on this pretext, he took.^1,66,00,000/from the complainant on different occasions. However, Sanjay Saxena failed to produce even a single buyer and conclude deals- Complainant askedhim;.. to refund the money at which he started threatening the coniplainant with ' dire consequences. He everi threatened to kill, the.coniplainant and his ', 'fa,mily, in case he persisted with his demand for returning the commission ' rnoney. Ms. Anita Saxena,also joined her husband Sanjay Saxena upon learning that complainant had lodged a complaint at police station'Aiiand \ Vihar. ■ Both the petitioners executed four promissory notes and also gave ■, repayment cheques:,Complainant has' provided.original dociiniehts to the, Investigatirig Officer. Complainant noticed that petitioners had signed{the,. said documents in different styles with a,view to deceive and. cheat the coniplainant. It is turther submitted,that execiitibn Of rnemprandurn of V understandingby thepetitioners, who are educatedpersons, itself shows that petitioners have'admitted the receipt of the said arnount of^^1^66,00,000/-,/. from the complainant, therefore, plea taken by them that transaction is fictitious, cannot be believed. Leanied. APP submits that custodial' I interrogation is required. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances, as narrated above including the memorandum of' understanding whereby receipt of ?1,66,00,000/- from' the complainant.has been admitted, inasmuch as promissory notes, repayment cheques etc. and the allegations in the FIR which are serious in nature,in my view petitioners have failed to make out a case for grantofanticipatory bail. Bail applications are dismissed. A.K.^THAK,J