Full Text
Translation output
€
$-6 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL)2896/2015 and Crl.M.A.3915/2016
RAVINDRA NATHDASS@ROBIN DASS Petitioner
Through: Mr. R. R. Kumar and Mr. Amrendra Kumar,Advs.
$-6 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(CRL)2896/2015 and Crl.M.A.3915/2016
RAVINDRA NATHDASS@ROBIN DASS Petitioner
Through: Mr. R. R. Kumar and Mr. Amrendra Kumar,Advs.
VERSUS
STATE OF NOT OF DELHI& ANR Respondents
Through: Mr. Avi Singh, ASC (Crl.) and Ms. Megha Bahl, Adv. with Inspector
Prabhu DayalPS.VasantKunjNorth.
Mr.A.Tewari,Adv.for complainant.
Through: Mr. Avi Singh, ASC (Crl.) and Ms. Megha Bahl, Adv. with Inspector
Prabhu DayalPS.VasantKunjNorth.
Mr.A.Tewari,Adv.for complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.PATHAK
02.08.2016
02.08.2016
W.P.(CRLI 2896/2015
On an oral prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner, present petition is treated as bail application under Section 438 Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973.
Registryto registerthis petition as abail application.
1 .
Bail Application NO. 72016(to be numbered)
It is not in dispute that petitioner had agreed to sell the Flat
No.B-11/8049, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi to complainant/respondent no.2, vide agreement to sell dated 13^^^ June, 2012 for ^2,90,00,000/- and
2016:DHC:8289 ^50,00,000/- was paid towards earnest money by the complainant to petitioner. As per the agreement to.sell, sale deed was to be executed on
30* September,2012,on receipt ofthe balance sale consideration. As per.. the agreement, petitioner was to get the flat converted from leasehold to freehold and in fact got the flat converted from leasehold to freehold. It is also an admitted case ofthe parties that another sum of^75,00,000/- was paid as partpayment,and it was agreed thatsale deed would be executed on
29* November,2012. Respondent No.2 lodged the FIR on the allegations that though balance payment was arranged but petitioner did not come forward to execute the sale deed on 29* November,2012. Instead he left for London on the pretext that his son was not well and has not returned thereafter. Complainant has alleged in the FIR lodged on 27* April,2013 thatshe was afraid thatpetitioner was cheating her.
"K Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.2 has already filed a civil suit for specific performance being CS (OS)
No.1240/2013 and the same is pending. Respondent no.2 did not make the balance payment and breached the agreement. In the written statement petitionerhastaken apleathatrespondentno.2/complainantwasneverready and willing to perform her partofthe contract,in terms ofthe agreementto
--4 sell dated 13^^ June,2012 as she did not come forward to pay the balance sale consideration,inasmuch as, did not purchase the complete stamp duty as on 29^^ November, 2012. Stamp duty of about Rs.15,00,000/- was payable but respondent no.2 had purchased stamp duty of^3 Lakhs only.
Disputes are civil in nature. FIR has been filed to pressurise the petitioner to give up his defence. Petitioner had no intention to cheatthe respondent no.2, which is evident from the fact that he got the flat converted from leasehold to freehold in terms ofthe agreement. Petitioner is still owner of flat, inasmuch as, his wife is still living therein. Petitioner had gone to
United Kingdom to see his ailingson and could notreturn dueto compelling reasons. Petitioner is ready and willing to execute the sale deed on receipt ofthe balance payment ofRs.1,65,00,000/- from the respondent no.2,even thoughrespondentno.2hasfloutedtheagreementand advanceisliableto be forfeited.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that petitioner is liable to pay interestas he had retained Rs.1,25,00,000/-ofrespondentno.2 therefore ^1,65,00,000/- being balance sale consideration is not payable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no interest is payable since respondent had not paid balance sale consideration^dn-fime and it is the lo complainant/respondent no.2 who was notready and willing to execute the sale deed.
Learned additional standing counsel submits that petitioner has already been declared a proclaimed offender on March,2016,therefore, is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on Jagdish Nautiyal Vs.State, MANU/DE/6227/2012 has considered that merely because petitioner is a P.O. will not be ground to reject anticipatory bail application, more particularly, when the disputes in thiscase are primarilyofcivilnature,and disputed questionsoffactarisesin the civil suit.
Keepingin mindthetotality ofthefacts and circumstancesasdetailed above, it is ordered that in case of arrest, petitioner be released on.bail, subjectto hisfurnishing personal bond inthesum ofRs.1,00,000/-(Rupees
One Lakh Only)with one surety ofthe like amount to the satisfaction of
Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/SHO-Concemed.
Application isdisposed ofinthe aboveterms.
Dasti.
^pathak;j.
AUGUST 02,2016/dk
On an oral prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner, present petition is treated as bail application under Section 438 Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973.
Registryto registerthis petition as abail application.
1 .
Bail Application NO. 72016(to be numbered)
It is not in dispute that petitioner had agreed to sell the Flat
No.B-11/8049, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi to complainant/respondent no.2, vide agreement to sell dated 13^^^ June, 2012 for ^2,90,00,000/- and
2016:DHC:8289 ^50,00,000/- was paid towards earnest money by the complainant to petitioner. As per the agreement to.sell, sale deed was to be executed on
30* September,2012,on receipt ofthe balance sale consideration. As per.. the agreement, petitioner was to get the flat converted from leasehold to freehold and in fact got the flat converted from leasehold to freehold. It is also an admitted case ofthe parties that another sum of^75,00,000/- was paid as partpayment,and it was agreed thatsale deed would be executed on
29* November,2012. Respondent No.2 lodged the FIR on the allegations that though balance payment was arranged but petitioner did not come forward to execute the sale deed on 29* November,2012. Instead he left for London on the pretext that his son was not well and has not returned thereafter. Complainant has alleged in the FIR lodged on 27* April,2013 thatshe was afraid thatpetitioner was cheating her.
"K Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.2 has already filed a civil suit for specific performance being CS (OS)
No.1240/2013 and the same is pending. Respondent no.2 did not make the balance payment and breached the agreement. In the written statement petitionerhastaken apleathatrespondentno.2/complainantwasneverready and willing to perform her partofthe contract,in terms ofthe agreementto
--4 sell dated 13^^ June,2012 as she did not come forward to pay the balance sale consideration,inasmuch as, did not purchase the complete stamp duty as on 29^^ November, 2012. Stamp duty of about Rs.15,00,000/- was payable but respondent no.2 had purchased stamp duty of^3 Lakhs only.
Disputes are civil in nature. FIR has been filed to pressurise the petitioner to give up his defence. Petitioner had no intention to cheatthe respondent no.2, which is evident from the fact that he got the flat converted from leasehold to freehold in terms ofthe agreement. Petitioner is still owner of flat, inasmuch as, his wife is still living therein. Petitioner had gone to
United Kingdom to see his ailingson and could notreturn dueto compelling reasons. Petitioner is ready and willing to execute the sale deed on receipt ofthe balance payment ofRs.1,65,00,000/- from the respondent no.2,even thoughrespondentno.2hasfloutedtheagreementand advanceisliableto be forfeited.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that petitioner is liable to pay interestas he had retained Rs.1,25,00,000/-ofrespondentno.2 therefore ^1,65,00,000/- being balance sale consideration is not payable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no interest is payable since respondent had not paid balance sale consideration^dn-fime and it is the lo complainant/respondent no.2 who was notready and willing to execute the sale deed.
Learned additional standing counsel submits that petitioner has already been declared a proclaimed offender on March,2016,therefore, is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on Jagdish Nautiyal Vs.State, MANU/DE/6227/2012 has considered that merely because petitioner is a P.O. will not be ground to reject anticipatory bail application, more particularly, when the disputes in thiscase are primarilyofcivilnature,and disputed questionsoffactarisesin the civil suit.
Keepingin mindthetotality ofthefacts and circumstancesasdetailed above, it is ordered that in case of arrest, petitioner be released on.bail, subjectto hisfurnishing personal bond inthesum ofRs.1,00,000/-(Rupees
One Lakh Only)with one surety ofthe like amount to the satisfaction of
Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/SHO-Concemed.
Application isdisposed ofinthe aboveterms.
Dasti.
^pathak;j.
AUGUST 02,2016/dk
JUDGMENT