Point of law : Fact as to whether the petitioner can be convicted for an offence under Section 467 IPC with the aid of Section 120B IPC will be decided only at the time of trial, after evidence is lead.

JUDGMENT :

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petitions under Section 439 Cr.P.C seeking bail in FIR No.45/2020 dated 19.07.2020, registered at Police Station Connaught Place for offences under Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC and FIR No.46/2020 dated 20.07.2020, registered at Police Station Connaught Place for offences under Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC.

2. The allegation in the FIR No.45/2020 is that the complainant is a registered government licensed electrical contractor. It is stated that in the year 1996, the complainant had applied for an industrial plot with DSIDC (Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation) now known as DSIIDC (Delhi State Infrastructure Industries Development Corporation) under relocation scheme under the name of M/s D. K. Traders. It is stated that application No. 54114 was allotted to the complainant, however the said application/plot was cancelled in the year around 2001. It is stated that on 10.01.2019 one Mr. Vikram Saxena along with one Mr. Ajay Saxena came to the previous office of the complainant and enquired about M/s D.K. Traders, the business entity of the complainant. It is stated that since the complainant had shifted his office, Vikram Saxena met the complainant at his new office. It is stated that Mr. Vikram Saxena introduced himself as an employee of DSIDC by showing his I-Card and showed the complainant some papers having the complainant's application number with DSIDC for industrial plot for which he had applied in 1996, but had later been cancelled. It is stated that Mr. Vikram Saxena convinced the complainant by saying that the Government had allotted 10,000 new plots to those persons who were earlier denied industrial plots at the current market rate. It is stated that Mr. Vikram Saxena introduced Mr. Ajay Saxena as his senior colleague in Relocation Division with DSIDC and stated that he would complete all the necessary formalities in obtaining the industrial plot. It is stated that Mr. Vikram Saxena further told the complainant to come to the DSIDC office at Connaught Place for further clarification and gave his telephone number to the complainant. It is stated that the complainant, in order to verify the same, went to the DSIDC office where he met Mr. Vikram Saxena who told complainant to wait downstairs near "Jain Chawal Wala" as it was not appropriate to talk in front of everyone. It is stated that after few minutes, Mr. Vikram Saxena then came downstairs along with the petitioner and introduced him as his senior under whom he was working. It is stated that they held a meeting where Mr. Vikram Saxena showed the complainant his old application papers of DSIDC in order to portray to the complainant that he had all the previous details of his cancelled plot. It is stated that the petitioner herein also confirmed that DSIDC was offering plots to the persons whose plots were cancelled earlier and that this was one in a lifetime opportunity. Mr. Vikram Saxena further said that he would provide an allocation letter for allotment of Industrial Plot within 2-3 days. It is stated that the complainant was convinced that Mr. Vikram Saxena was an employee of DSIDC. It is stated on 17.01.2019, Mr. Vikram Saxena called the complainant stating that his allotment letter was ready and asked him to come to office for collecting the same. It is stated that Mr. Vikram Saxena handed over allotment letter purported to be issued by DSIIDC vide No. DSIIDC/RULEC/54114 2016-17 dated 14.01.2019. It is stated that Vikram Saxena further called the complainant and asked him to provide all the documents as demanded in the letter within 15 days, otherwise the plot would be cancelled again. It is stated that Vikram Saxena further demanded Rs.5 lakhs as their liaison fee, for file charge, for application form and for further proceedings. It is stated that Vikram Saxena further told the complainant not to talk to anyone else in the DSIDC office. It is stated that the petitioner gave