Kulvinder Singh v. State

1. The present application seeks modification of the order dated 23rd May, 2016 passed by this Court in Crl. MA No. 4722/2016 in Bail Application No. 938/2014.

2. This Court, by way of order dated 5th December, 2014, disposed of the said bail application, by way of following order:- “This is an application under Section 439 read with Section 482 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking bail in case FIR No.114/2013 under Sections 406/420/120B IPC registered at PS EOW, Delhi. 2016:DHC:5571-DB Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was arrested on 22.11.2013 and he was released on interim bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi vide order dated 10.01.2014. He also submits that the parties could not settle the matter and the interim bail granted to the applicant was cancelled by learned Additional Sessions Judge, South, Saket Courts, Delhi vide order dated 11.04.2014. He further submits that the applicant surrendered on 21.04.2014. Thereafter, the applicant filed the present application seeking bail and the applicant was admitted to interim bail on 06.05.2014 by this Court for a period of three weeks. Learned counsel for both the parties submit that the parties have settled the matter and a Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.12.2014 has been placed on record. In terms of the settlement, the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.[2] crores (Rupees two crores), without prejudice to the rights of both the parties. As per the settlement, the first instalment of Rs.50 lakhs (Rupees fifty lakhs) will be paid by the applicant to the complainant on or before 20.12.2014 by way of demand draft and another sum of Rs.50 lakhs (Rupees fifty lakhs) shall be paid on or before 20.02.2015. The remaining amount of Rs.[1] crore (Rupees one crore) shall be paid to the complainant by way of fixed deposit receipts which will be deposited before the trial Court on or before 05.04.2015. It is also agreed that the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, on instructions from the complainant, submits that he has no objection if the applicant is admitted to bail, in terms of settlement. The other issues would be decided by the trial court during the course of trial. Learned APP for the State submits that investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, the applicant is admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.[1] lakh (Rupees one lakh) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. However, the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court, as agreed by both the parties and parties shall abide by the terms of the compromise. The application stands disposed of. Dasti.”

3. A perusal of the said order dated 5th December, 2014 reveals that the parties to the subject FIR No. 114/2013 under Sections 406/420/120B IPC, registered at Police Station- Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, had settled the matter in terms of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 4th December, 2014, which had been placed on record.

4. By way of the aforesaid settlement, the applicant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 2 crores to the complainant, without prejudice to his rights and contentions.

5. As per the terms of settlement, the first installment of Rs. 50 lakhs was to be paid by the applicant to the complainant on or before 20th December, 2014 by way of a demand draft; the second installment of Rs. 50 lakhs was to be paid by the applicant to the complainant on or before 20th February, 2015; and the balance amount of Rs. 1 crore was to be paid by the applicant to the complainant by way of Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) to be deposited before the trial Court on or before 5th April, 2015. It was further undertaken by the applicant that he would not leave the country without the prior permission of the trial Court.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court had admitted the applicant to bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and further restrained the applicant from leaving the country without the prior permission of the trial Court and directed the parties to abide by the terms of the compromise entered into between them without demur.

7. Thereafter, the applicant, by way of Crl. MA No. 1773/2015, prayed as under:- “(a)allow the present Application and modify the order dated 05.12.2014 to the extent of granting minimum 8 weeks extension of time to the Applicant to pay a sum of Rs.50 lakh to the Complainant in terms of the settlement; and (b) further grant liberty to the Applicant to furnish Bank Guarantee for Rs.[1] Crore with interest in favour of the Ld. Trial Court on or before 05.04.2015 instead of filing Fixed Deposit Receipts as directed vide order dated 05.12.2014; and/or

(c) pass such other or further order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and to secure the ends of justice.”

8. This Court, by way of order dated 8th October, 2015, disposed of the said application bearing Crl. MA No. 1773/2015, by way of the following order:- “CRL.M.A. 1773/2015 The present is an application praying as under: “(a) allow the present Application and modify the order dated 05.12.2014 to the extent of granting minimum 8 weeks extension of time to the Applicant to pay a sum of Rs.50 lakh to the Complainant in terms of the settlement; and (b) further grant liberty to the Applicant to furnish Bank Guarantee for Rs.[1] Crore with interest in favour of the Ld. Trial Court on or before 05.04.2015 instead of filing Fixed Deposit Receipts as directed vide order dated 05.12.2014; and/or” Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the nonapplicant/complainant accepts notice and vehemently opposes this application. This court by way of order dated 05.12.2014 directed as under:- “Learned counsel for both the parties submit that the parties have settled the matter and a Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.12.2014 has been placed on record. In terms of the settlement, the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.[2] crores (Rupees two crores), without prejudice to the rights of both the parties. As per the settlement, the first instalment of Rs.50 lakhs (Rupees fifty lakhs) will be paid by the applicant to the complainant on or before 20.12.2014 by way of demand draft and another sum of Rs.50 lakhs (Rupees fifty lakhs) shall be paid on or before 20.02.2015. The remaining amount of Rs.[1] crore (Rupees on crore) shall be paid to the complainant by way of fixed deposit receipts which will be deposited before the trial Court on or before 05.04.2015. It is also agreed that the petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.” Counsel for the parties admit that a sum of Rs.1crore has already been received by the complainant in the subject FIR. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, however, states that he has not been able to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.1crore by way of fixed deposit receipt before the trial court. In view of the facts and circumstances aforesaid, the applicant is granted three more months to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.1crore by way of fixed deposit receipt or bank guarantee to be deposited before the trial court. The applicant shall, however, deposit interest @ 6% on the amount of Rs.1crore from 05.04.2015 till the date the said fixed deposit receipt/bank guarantee is furnished/deposited before the trial court. The application is disposed of accordingly.”

9. A perusal of the said order dated 8th October, 2015 reveals that although the applicant had paid a sum of Rs. 1 crore to the complainant in the subject FIR, the remaining amount of Rs. 1 crore by way of fixed deposit receipts had not been deposited before the trial Court as undertaken.

10. In view of the facts and circumstances as afore-stated, the applicant was granted three months’ time to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 1 crore by way of fixed deposit receipts (FDRs)/bank guarantees along with interest thereon @ 6% on the said amount of Rs. 1 crore, from 5th April, 2015 till the date the said FDRs/bank guarantees were deposited before the trial Court, within a period of three months from 8th October, 2015.

11. By way of Crl. MA No. 11160/2015, a further modification was sought by the applicant and that application was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court on 23rd May, 2016. However, time was granted to the applicant for a further period of five weeks from 23rd May, 2016 to comply with the modified order dated 8th

12. The present application being Crl. MA No. 11160/2015 seeks modification of the order dated 23rd May, 2016 and prays as follows:- “(a) modify the order dated 23.05.2016 and, in an order of generous indulgence, allow the petitioner to deposit the title deeds with the learned Trial Court, with an announced undertaking that it shall be deemed to be an equitable mortgage and a first charge on that property for the honouring of the unfulfilled part of the MOU for filing of FDR/furnishing of bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 1 crore. The petitioner undertakes to additionally deposit registered title deeds dated 30.08.2006, 30.11.2006, 29.12.2006 and 01.02.2007 in his name with the learned Trial Court. (b) grant any further orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem appropriate and in the larger interest of justice.”

13. It is an admitted position that subsequent upon the order dated 5th December, 2014, when the present bail application filed on behalf of the applicant was disposed of by this Court on the foundation of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 4th December, 2014, the applicant has sought repeated modifications of the said order.

14. It is further evident that a partial modification in terms of extension of time subject to deposit of interest @ 6% on the amount of Rs. 1 crore from 5th April, 2015 till the date of deposit before the trial Court, was permitted by this Court by way of order dated 8th