Point of Law : Grant of anticipatory Bail - Petitioners have been joining the investigation since then, no further recovery is required to be made from the petitioners and the evidence is documentary in nature which documents have already been collected.

JUDGMENT :

The hearing has been conducted through Physical Mode.

1. By these two petitions, petitioners who are mother and son seek anticipatory bail in FIR No.308/2017 under Sections 420/468/471 IPC registered at PS Pahar Ganj, Delhi.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the complainant is the brother-in-law of Naraini Newar and paternal uncle of Harsh Newar. Both the families were having joint business which got separated pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)/ Dissolution Deed arrived at between the parties. Neither the terms nor the execution of the MOU/Dissolution Deed are disputed. However, it is alleged that the date in the said MOU has been forged and though the MOU was dated 11th September, 2001, which fact is admitted by the petitioners in various proceedings however, the same was posted on 3rd September, 2000 which postal receipts are also forged and fabricated. The petitioners have joined the investigation and no further recovery is to be made from the petitioners. Besides lodging of the FIR, the complainant also filed a suit for specific performance of the Memorandum of Understanding and grant of damages which was dismissed as barred by limitation and having failed in the said attempt, the above-noted FIR was got registered.

3. Learned APP for the State has taken this Court through the FIR and claims that during the investigation the endorsement on the postal receipts was found to be forged and fabricated. An expert opinion has been received from the Truth Lab as per which the writing and signatures on the questioned document and the admitted documents tally and thus the petitioners forged the questioned documents.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that by utilising this forged and fabricated documents, the petitioners caused a serious financial loss to the complainant to the tune of approximately Rs. 2 crores and since the investigation reveals that the petitioner forged the documents, anticipatory bail be not granted to them.

5. The above-noted FIR was registered on 9th October, 2017 on the complaint of Kailash Newar who stated that he is the Director of M/s Sarda Solvent Extractions Pvt. Ltd. (in short ‘M/s Sarda’) and guarantor of M/s Exho Exports, New Delhi (in short ‘M/s Exho’) against various credit facilities/loans provided by the Bank of Rajasthan, Kamla Nagar, Delhi and his sister-in-law Ms.Naraini Newar was one of the partners of M/s Exho. In the year 2001 the account of M/s Exho was declared a non-performing asset (NPA) and thus the bank filed recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) bearing OA No.210/2002. The complainant along with his brother Satish Newar, husband of Naraini Newar was carrying on family business jointly. Since the dispute arose between the parties, to resolve the dispute MOU dated 11th September, 2001 was entered into between them. In terms of the MOU, M/s Exho came to the share of Seema Newar, wife of the complainant and other firm M/s Excellent Hosiery Products (in short ‘M/s Excellent’) came to the share of Satish Newar, husband of Naraini Newar. M/s Sarda had given the guarantee against loans taken by both these firms.

6. It is further alleged that on 25th January, 2012 the complainant received certified copies of some documents which reveal that Naraini Newar in collusion with her son Harsh Newar and husband Satish Newar filed forged and fabricated postal receipts and Dissolution Deed along with the false affidavit before the DRT. The complainant stated that Ms.Naraini Newar claimed before DRT that she had sent the dissolution deed of M/s Exho to Bank of Rajasthan through letter posted against alleged postal receipts dated 3rd September, 2001 whereas the Dissolution Deed itself is dated 11th September, 2001 and was notarised on 11th September, 2001. Thus the Xerox copy of the document executed on 11th September, 2001 could not have been sent on 3rd September, 2001. Further the postal receipt dated 3rd September, 2001