The gravity of the allegations, lack of cooperation in the investigation, and the need for custodial interrogation to recover the alleged cheated amount influenced the court's decision to dismiss the bail application.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. - This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 883/2020 under Sections 420 IPC registered at Police Station Najafgarh.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered on the complaint of Pradeep Kumar (complainant) against the Dhruv Goel (present petitioner) who represented himself to be the rightful owner of property bearing khasra No. 113min (0-4), 112 min (1-0), 118min (1-0), 121 min (1-0) and 122 mm (1-0) of village Maksudabad, Najafgarh, New Delhi. The petitioner showed a khatoni where applicant Dhruv Goel is reflected as the owner of the property. Thereafter an agreement to sell between the complainant and Dhruv Goel was executed on 15.12.2015, for total sale consideration of Rs.6,90,00,000/-, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the complainant was induced to pay Rs.15,00,000/- vide cheque bearing No. 000013 dated 29.11.2015 which was encashed by the accused person and remaining Rs.85,00,000/- were paid in cash. also, the petitioner, had to obtain No Objection Certificate, from concerned department for sale of the property mentioned above but he could not obtain the NOC. Thereafter, the complainant visited the concerned SDM office and enquired about the property, where he came to know that the PIQ is in the name of Sh. R.K. Goel (father of the Dhruv Goel) who had died much prior to the execution of agreement dated 15.12.2015 and after the death of Sh. R.K. Goel there are other legal heirs of the said property in question. The petitioner had concealed this vital facts from the complainant and he fraudulently executed the agreement dated 15.12.2015. The complainant also made a complaint at PS Najafgarh vide DD No. 57B, dated 05.08.2018 and when the police officials contacted the petitioner regarding enquiry and investigation the petitioner requested the complainant not to file any complaint against him and assured that he will resolve the matter. Then, petitioner Dhruv Goel had entered into a MOU dated 13.02.2019 with the complainant, which was again false and the petitioner also executed an undertaking dated 13.02.2019 and paid a sum of Rs10,00,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No. 240655, dated 21.02.2019 form Induslnd Bank Limited, Najafgarh, New Delhi. also, at the time of execution of MOU dated 13.02.2019 petitioner had issued a cheque bearing No. 000038 dated 20.02.2019 drawn on HDFC Bank, Gopinath Baazar Delhi Cantt. Branch but asked the complainant to return the above mentioned cheque and instead of the cheque the petitioner gave the above mentioned demand draft to the complainant. Complainant provided copy of agreement to Sell and Purchase between Pardeep Kumar and alleged Dhruv Goel dated 14.12.2015 wherein applicant showed himself as the owner of Khasra No. 113 min (0-4) 112 min (1-0) 118 min (1-0) 121 min (1-0) and 122 min (1-0) of village Maksoodabad Delhi and in the said agreement alleged person agreed that he will get the property mutated in his name from SDM office. It is also found that petitioner Dhruv Goel's sister namely Sarini Kakkar (other legal heir) had also filed a suit in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide C.S. (OS) No. 1341/2010 regarding this property in question i.e. Khasra No 112/2, 113/3, 118/2, 121/2 & 122/2 whereby claiming her part in the property. Then, on perusal of the court orders it has come to notice that on 13.09.2010, Hon'ble Court has ordered to maintain the status quo and the same was confirmed further vide order dated 16.05.2011, despite this fact , the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell with the complainant. During the further investigation, Khautauni of Khasra No. 112/2, 113/3,118/2, 121/2, 122/2 was obtained and as per record total land was found to be 4 Bighas and 4 Bishwas and the present petitioner has only 1/11 share of this property which is approximately 400 Sq. yards. as per record petitioner is owner of only 1 Big