Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Jai Kumar Goel - Appellant
Versus
State NCT Of Delhi & Anr. - Respondents
Bail Appln. No. 1702/2019
Decided On : 16-11-2021
Forgery - Property Dispute - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419/420/468/471 read with Section 34 - Settlement agreement dated 08.11.2019
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed an application seeking recall of the Order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a property dispute case. The petitioner had allegedly mortgaged a property by forging documents and taken a loan. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, but the respondent sought recall of the bail, alleging non-compliance with the settlement terms.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the settlement agreement did not clearly specify the party responsible for paying stamp duty for property transfer. It also noted that the property in question was not attached, as claimed by the respondent. The court dismissed the application, stating that no grounds for cancellation of bail were made out.
Issues: Interpretation of settlement agreement terms, alleged non-compliance with settlement terms, and the legitimacy of the attachment of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the settlement agreement did not clearly assign liability for paying stamp duty, and no grounds for cancellation of bail were established.
Final Decision: The application seeking recall of the bail was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - Crl.M.A. 17068/2020
1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Respondent No.2/Complainant seeking recall of the Order dated 27.11.2019 passed by this Court in BAIL APPLN.1702/2019 granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioner in FIR No. 474/2017 dated 16.09.2017 registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar for offences under Sections 419/420/468/471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Facts, in brief, leading to the present application are stated as under:
(a) The instant FIR was registered on the complaint of Respondent No.2, who is the real younger brother of the Petitioner herein. It is stated that the Complainant and his wife, along with the Petitioner and his wife, purchased a residential property bearing No. D-64, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, UP measuring 437.69 sq. mtrs. (hereinafter, 'the property in question'). It is stated that the original title documents, i.e. the registry documents, were kept by the Petitioner and his wife in their custody. It is stated that the Complainant came to know that the Petitioner herein had mortgaged the property in question by forging documents and had taken a loan worth Rs.1,86,01,534/- from Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. on 01.02.2013. It is further stated that there is a pending liability of Rs.1,77,67,349/- against the Petitioner that is to be repaid to Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. with regard to the abovementioned loan.
(b) It is stated that when the Complainant confronted the Petitioner with regard to the loan, the Petitioner threatened the Complainant, and proceeded to abuse and humiliate him. It is alleged that a similar act was done by the Petitioner in the past wherein he borrowed a loan using forged signatures of the Complainant and his wife from Religare Finance Ltd. on 23.08.2010. It is stated that the Complainant had sent a notice to Religare Finance Ltd. on 11.07.2012 and then on 19.01.2013. It is further stated that documents of other properties of the Complainant and his wife are also in the custody of the Petitioner and his wife and the same can be misused by them.
(c) On this complaint FIR No. 474/2017 was registered on 16.09.2017 at Police Station Vivek Vihar for offences under Sections 419/420/468/471 read with Section 34 IPC.
(d) With regard to the instant FIR, the Petitioner approached the Trial Court by filing an application for grant of anticipatory bail. The learned Additional Session Judge - 05, Karkardooma Court, vide Order dated 04.07.2019 dismissed the application of the Petitioner.
(e) It is stated that thereafter the Petitioner approached this Court by filing an application for anticipatory bail, being BAIL APPLN. 1702/2019. It is stated that the wife of the Petitioner also approached this Court by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being CRL.M.C. 4362/2019, seeking quashing of FIR No. 474/2017. It is stated that vide Order dated 02.09.2019, this Court referred CRL.M.C. 4362/2019 and BAIL APPLN.1702/2019 to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for the possible settlement of the dispute. It is stated that the parties amicably settled the dispute by entering into a settlement agreement dated 08.11.2019. Relying on the settlement agreement, this Court granted anticipatory bail to the Petitioner vide order dated 27.11.2019 and disposed of the bail application.
(f) The relevant portion of the settlement agreement dated 08.11.2019 reads as follows:-
"1. It is agreed by the Second Party that property bearing no.D-64, Kaushambi, District-Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh which is presently in the joint name of First Party & Second Party would go to the share of the First Party herein.
2. That it is further agreed that the entire pending loan which has been taken in the name of M/s. JKG Construction Pvt. Ltd. from Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. against the mortgage of property bearing no. D-64, Kaushambi, District- Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh will be paid by the Second Party either individually or through
The settlement agreement terms must clearly specify the obligations of the parties to avoid ambiguity and potential disputes.
Ambiguity in a settlement agreement does not justify the cancellation of anticipatory bail when neither party has clearly breached its terms.
Grant of bail though being a discretionary order, calls for exercise of such discretion in a judicious manner and is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by Court.
The main legal point established is the requirement for specific reasons and a change in circumstances for granting anticipatory bail in a subsequent petition, and the consequences of abuse of proces....
Suppression of material fact vitiates the relief obtained and can be a ground for canceling bail. The distinction between rejection of bail at the initial stage and cancellation of bail after it has ....
The significance of statements recorded under Section 164 and Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code in considering applications for anticipatory bail cancellation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
