Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 2410

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Saurabh Banerjee, J.
Parveen Garg – Appellant
Versus
State & Anr. – Respondents
Bail Appln. 2481 of 2023
Decided On : 07-08-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Rahul Mehra with Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior Advocates alongwith Ms. Neelam Sharma, Mr. Chaitanya gosain and Mr. Anand Thumbayil, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP, for the State with SI Anil Kumar.
Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rishi Manchanda, Mr. Siddharth Mullick, Mr. Amandeep Singh, Mr. Arun Kumar and Mr. Aditya Raj, Advocates, for the Respondent.

The court emphasized the importance of ownership documents, lack of evidence, cooperation in the investigation, and absence of previous incidents in granting anticipatory bail.

Headnote:
Property Dispute - Anticipatory Bail - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419/420/468/471/34 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438
Fact of the Case:

The dispute involves a property in New Delhi, initially allotted to Mr. Daulat Singh, later sold to various parties and finally to Xilon Trading Private Limited (XTPL). The complainant alleged trespass and claimed ownership based on forged documents, leading to the filing of an application for anticipatory bail.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that XTPL had ownership documents dating back to 1996, while the complainant failed to provide evidence of ownership or possession. The court also noted the applicant's cooperation in the investigation and lack of previous incidents of a similar nature, leading to the grant of anticipatory bail.
Issues: Dispute over property ownership, alleged forged documents, and the need for custodial interrogation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the ownership documents, the complainant's lack of evidence, the applicant's cooperation in the investigation, and the absence of previous incidents to grant anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The applicant was granted anticipatory bail with specific conditions, and the observations made were prima facie in nature for the purpose of deciding the bail application.

JUDGMENT

1. The dispute arising in the present FIR pertains to a property bearing Plot No.11, Pocket-15A, Section 24, Rohini, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as `property'], which was initially allotted to one Mr. Daulat Singh, the grandfather of the complainant, Mr. Deepak Singh. As per facts, the said Mr. Daulat Singh sold the property to one Ms. Aruna Kaushik in December 1993, who in turn sold it to Mr. Satpal Grover in June 1996, who finally sold it to M/s Xilon Trading Private Limited [hereinafter referred "XTPL"] of which the applicant is a Director in September 1996 for Rs.7,00,000/- [Rupees Seven Lakhs Only]. As per applicant, though the proof of the payment by XTPL is missing as the Bank involved has since closed, however, the documents qua the chain of the aforesaid transactions have already been provided by the applicant to the Investigating Officer [hereinafter referred to as I.O.] during the course of investigation.

2. When this application was listed before this Court for the first time on 27.07.2023, the learned senior counsels appearing for the applicant submitted that XTPL was the bona-fide purchaser of the property from the grandfather of the complainant and according to them the complainant came in possession of the property in the last couple of years only, although they were unable to give the exact date thereof.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the complainant, present in Court on that day, submitted that the complainant came to know in November 2019 that certain individuals, in connivance with Delhi Development Authority [hereinafter referred to as DDA], were attempting to trespass and claim ownership of the aforementioned property based on forged and fabricated documents. It was thereafter that the complainant lodged a complaint leading to the registration of the present FIR No. 125/2022 under Sections 419/420/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Crime Branch, Delhi. This has led to filing of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking grant of anticipatory bail.

4. Thereafter, the learned APP appearing for the State submitted that though Mr. Daulat Singh, the initial allottee of the property in question left for his heavenly abode way back on 18.12.1997, however, the Conveyance Deed dated 21.07.2011 executed in favour of XTPL of which the applicant is a Director, reflects his name as the lessee therein and other documents before the DDA for getting the property freehold. It was also submitted that the applicant had withheld the Sanction Plan filed by XTPL sometime in 2007 as it was containing the signature of the same deceased Mr. Daulat Singh.

5. Accordingly, this Court, considering the checked history involved, was pleased to issue the following directions:

"...in the interest of justice if the applicant appears to join the investigation before the concerned Investigating Officer for three consecutive days from 31.07.2023 to 02.08.2023 to cooperate with the Investigating Agency and make a concrete effort in divulging all the details with respect to the documents submitted by XTPL for getting the Sanctioned Plan during the years 2007-2009 and further qua the applications and affidavits seeking extension of time for construction filed by the same XTPL before the DDA also in the years 2007-2009 and lastly furnish a copy of all the relevant documents qua the disputed property in his power and possession or with XTPL. Needless to say, the Investigating Officer shall be free to proceed with further investigation, if required, in the above terms, in accordance with law."

6. Today, learned senior counsels appearing for the applicant at the outset, submit that the applicant, despite being a 63-year-old senior citizen, has not only joined investigation but has also been participating in the proceedings as and when called for since before passing of the order dated 27.07.2023. It was then submitted that all documents showing the chain of