IMPORTANT POINT
The genuineness of property documents and title should be decided by a Civil Court, and accused individuals should cooperate with the investigation.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The instant application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of applicant for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR bearing no. 147/2023, registered at Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur for the offences punishable under Sections 406/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC').

2. The present FIR was registered on the complaint of Mrs. Anita Palgotra who had stated that she was the owner of House No. 568, Prem Gali (Krishna Gali), Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi measuring 250 Sq. Yards, which had been given to her by her mother-in-law,late Smt. Krishna Wati, through a Gift Deed dated 10.01.2017 out of her love, affection and gratitude towards her and her husband i.e. elder son of Smt. Krishna Wati, since the accused persons Narender Palgotra i.e. younger son of Smt. Krishna Watiand his wife Ritu Palgotra i.e. present applicant used to harass, torture and hurl filthy abuses to their parents and hence, they had been debarred by their parents on 09.05.2013 by publishing a notice in a leading newspaper. It was alleged that even after being debarred, the accused persons had continued to illegally occupy the first floor of the property and had continued to extend threats to the old parents. It was stated that after the unfortunate death of the father-in-law of the complainant, the mother-in-law had gifted the property to the complainant on 10.01.2017 out of love and affection and being apprehensive of the illegal conduct of accused persons, and had also executed a will on the same day thereby mentioning all the illegal acts of the accused persons. The complainant further alleged that present accused in conspiracy with co-accused who is her husband had obtained signature from their mother late Smt. Krishna Wati on blank papers on false pretext and after the death of their mother Smt. Krishna Wati on 04.01.2023, the accused Narender Palgotra had started ascertaining right over the first floor of the concerned property as he had executed a gift deed dated 05.01.2018 in favour of the present accused/applicant on basis of a GPA dated 03.03.2000 executed by late Smt. Krishna Wati in favour of co-accused Narender Palgotra. During preliminary enquiry, the accused persons were also not able to give any satisfactory reply to the query that on what basis co-accused Narender Palgotra had executed a gift deed dated 05.01.2018 in his wife's favour despite the fact that late Smt. Krishan Wati had executed her will and relinquishment deed for the disputed property in favour of Mrs. Anita Palgotra i.e. the complainant. Therefore, the present FIR was registered.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant argues that the property in question had been bought by the mother-in-law of present applicant in the year 1974 and in January, 2000, an oral settlement had taken place and it had been decided that the applicant and her husband would live on the first floor and the elder brother would live on the ground floor of the property and this agreement was witnessed by several other family members. It is stated that a GPA and agreement to sell had also been executed on 03.03.2000 by late Smt. Krishan Wati in favour of co-accused Narender Palgotra, on the basis of which he had gifted the property to her wife i.e. the present applicant in the year 2018 as a security for her life. It is further argued that on 04.01.2023, the mother-in-law of applicant had expired and it was only a month thereafter that the applicant had got a call from the police station that the complainant had given a complaint against her. It is stated that all the relatives have already informed the IO that late Smt. Krishan Wati had given the first floor to the accused persons. It is also argued that though the complainant claims that a notice had been published by the parents of co-accused Narender Palgotra in the year 2013 that they had disowned the accused persons, it is strange that even for 10