Harvinder Singh Sodhi vs State Nct Of Delhi Through Sho Amar Colony Police Station South-East District New Delhi

Girish Kathpalia, J

The accused/applicant seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 206/2024 of PS Amar Colony for offence under Section 406/420/506 IPC.

1.1 This anticipatory bail application came up for the first hearing on 04.10.2024 before the predecessor bench and thereafter continued getting adjourned before different benches. Vide order dated 04.10.2024, the predecessor  bench  granted interim  protection to  the  accused/applicant  from arrest, which protection continued on date to date basis till date. Along with 179 such old pending bail applications, this application also was transferred to this bench.

1.2 Today is the first hearing before me. I have heard learned senior counsel  for  accused/applicant  and  learned  APP  for  State  as  well  as  learned counsel for complainant de facto.

Broadly speaking, prosecution case is as follows. The accused/applicant is father-in-law of niece of the complainant  de facto. The accused/applicant allegedly induced the complainant  de facto to pay money under  the  pretext  that  the  former  would  purchase  land  in  the  joint  name  of both  of  them, but  later  on, the  accused/applicant purchased  the  land  in  his individual name and sold it further to make profits.

Learned senior counsel for accused/applicant contends that no offence is made out even if prosecution case is believed as it is. It is contended that the transaction between the parties was a simple loan transaction, but colour of criminality  has been given only  to armtwist the accused/applicant. It is also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the catena of judicial pronouncements has given a note of caution that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be exploited for settling the civil disputes.

Learned APP for State assisted by IO/SI Sachin Kumar strongly opposes the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the facts mentioned above clearly make out an offence of cheating for the reason that the accused/applicant took money from the complainant de facto by misleading  him  that  the  property to  be  purchased  shall  be  in  joint  name  of the parties. It is also contended that it is not believable that loan with interest at the rate of 4% per annum would be granted by anyone.

Learned counsel for complainant de facto also strongly opposes the anticipatory bail application, reiterating the submissions advanced by learned APP for State. Additionally, it is contended that the accused/applicant  even  showed  to  the  complainant  de  facto  a  demand  draft in the name of the proposed seller but thereafter, cancelled the same and took the money in his own bank account. It is also submitted that instead of purchasing the land in joint names, the accused/applicant executed an agreement of cultivation of the land with the farmer and thereafter, sold away the same to another person at a higher rate, thereby earning profit without giving share  to  the  complainant de facto. It  is also contended  that the accused/applicant concealed his third bank account in which he had received cash amount from the buyer of the land.

In nutshell, the case set up by prosecution side is that the accused/applicant committed offence of cheating by taking money from the complainant de facto on the pretext of buying land in joint name, but bought the land in his individual name and sold away the same to earn profit; and on the  other  hand, the  accused/applicant  claims that  it  was  at  the  most  a  loan transaction and not an offence of cheating.

In order to make a prima facie view if any cheating is made out, specific query was put to prosecution side and the answer is that there is no document at all to show that the money was received by the accused/applicant for purchasing land in joint name with the complainant de facto. Admittedly, no cash amount was transferred from complainant de facto to the accused/applicant, so there is no receipt also to show the purpose of money paid to the accused/applicant. One also wonders as to why the complainant de facto would not pay the money directly to the seller, instead of transferring the money to the accused/applicant.

Another important aspect is that at request of both sides, the predecessor bench referred the matter to mediation, which failed. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that the bail courts are not money recovery forum.  But  for  present  purposes,  it  shows  that  the complainant  de facto  is  interested  in  getting  back  the money  and  not  in  prosecution  of  the accused/applicant, otherwise  he  would  not have  agreed  for  such mediation effort.

Considering  the above  circumstances,  I  find  no  reason  to deprive the accused/applicant liberty.

Therefore, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of his arrest, the accused/applicant shall be released on bail, subject to his  furnishing a personal bond in the  sum of Rs.25,000/- with one  surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned. Accused/applicant shall join investigation as and when directed in writing by the IO.