The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the applicants to disclose vital facts to the complainant before executing the agreement, and the court's consideration of the submission of the applicants in granting interim protection and allowing the anticipatory bail application.

JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection Raje P. Aher with C.R. No. 11 of 2020, registered with Govandi Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" for short).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is in the business of dealership of four wheeler, which is conducted in the name of Ritu Automobile Pvt. Ltd. The complainant and his wife are Directors of the said company. The complainant wanted to start workshop for repair of vehicles, the complainant was given information about the applicants by one Sushil Sahni. The complainant was also informed that the applicants are owners of said property. The complainant had discussion with applicant No.2. He represented that his mother (Applicant No.1) owner of property, situated near Shatabdi Hospital, admeasuring 12,000 Sq.ft., at the instance of complainant property was inspected. The complainant also inspected the property. He had discussion with the applicant about the rent of property. Sushil Sahni was also present. Applicant No.2 showed photocopy of the document about the ownership of the property. It was decided to let out the said property to the complainant for a period of five years on rental basis with deposit of Rs.25 Lakhs and rent of Rs. 3.5 Lakhs per month. Resolution was passed by complainant's company for executing Leave and License Agreement between 25th August, 2016 to 15th September, 2016 Rs.26 Lakhs were given to the applicants by cheque and cash. Documents were prepared. The premises was rented out for a period from 16th September, 2016 to 15th September, 2021. Agreement was registered with Sub-registrar before execution of the agreement, renovation work was carried out by the complainant. Amount Rs.12 Lakhs were spent by the complainant for renovation. The complainant received notice from Jasbirsingh Vijan in September, 2016 stating that petition relating to aforesaid property is pending in the High Court and stay has been granted by Court, regarding use of property. On receipt of the notice, the complainant questioned the applicant No.2. He gave evasive reply. He submitted that on account of family dispute, stay order has beep passed by the Court. It was decided to cancel the agreement. Documents were prepared and registered, the applicant No.1 had remained present before the Sub- Registrar. The applicants requested for time to return the deposited amount. However, the amount was not returned. The applicant No.2 avoided calls of the complainant. First Information Report was lodged on 14th January, 2020.

3. This application was initially heard by this Court on 1 st January, 2021. The applicant's were permitted to add complainant as respondent. The applicants tendered affidavit and submitted that they are willing to deposit of Rs.25 Lakhs by 8 th January, 2021. The affidavit dated 30th December, 2020 was taken on record. By the Order dated 1st January, 2021 this Court had observed that considering the facts and circumstances and since nothing is to be recovered from the applicants, interim protection can be granted to them. This Court granted interim protection to the applicants with direction to deposit Rs.25 Lakhs by 8 th January, 2021 with Registry of this Court. In compliance with the said order, the applicants have deposited amount of Rs.25 Lakhs in this Court on 6 th January, 2021. On 15th January, 2021, the application was adjourned to 5 th February, 2021 as the parties were exploring the possibility of settlement. However, there was no settlement. Hence, the application was heard on merits.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicants need not be subjected to custodial interrogation. The applicants have deposited amount of Rs.25 Lakhs in this Court. The FIR was lodged with malafide intention by suppressing vital facts. The offences under Section 406 and 420 of IPC, are not made out. The matter relates to documents. The app