IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.
Manminder Singh - Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. 518 of 2016, Crl.M.(Bail) 545 of 2016, Crl.M.A. 6574 of 2022 & 25977 of 2022 (340 Cr.P.C.)
Decided On : 26-02-2024
Anticipatory Bail - Property Dispute - Cr.P.C. - IPC 467/468/471/466/477A/34 - The court discussed the dispute over a property transaction, the alleged forgery of a Sale Deed, and the involvement of multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code. The court considered the pending investigation, the FSL report, and the petitioner's interim protection since 2016. The court granted anticipatory bail with conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a property dispute where the petitioner was accused of interfering with the complainant's possession of a property based on an allegedly forged Sale Deed. The investigation was pending since 2016, and the charge-sheet was yet to be filed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, though implicated in the alleged forgery, had been on interim protection since 2016 and had joined the investigation on several occasions. The court considered the dispute's civil nature and the pending civil suit filed by the complainant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the ownership of the property, the alleged forgery of the Sale Deed, and the petitioner's involvement in the transaction after his brother's death. The court also considered the petitioner's cooperation in the investigation and the pending civil suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the petitioner's interim protection, his cooperation in the investigation, and the pending civil suit. The court also considered the nature of the dispute and the need to maintain the status quo of the property during the proceedings.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions, considering his interim protection since 2016 and his cooperation in the investigation.
ORDER
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. - An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner/applicant for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.570/2015 under Section 420 IPC registered at P.S. Rajinder Nagar, Delhi. Section 467/468/471/466/477A/34 IPC were subsequently invoked after receiving the FSL result by the prosecution.
It may be noticed at this stage itself that investigation in this case is pending since 2016 and the charge-sheet is yet to be filed.
2. In brief, as per the case of prosecution, complainant (Jaspreet Singh Marwah) alleged that he is the lawful owner of property situated at Village Chhatarpur, Tehsil Mehrauli and had borrowed Rs.75 lacs from late Shri Dalvinder Singh (brother of petitioner/accused Manminder Singh) in the year 2003. For the security of the loan amount, he had signed and handed a Sale Deed in favour of M/s Mohindra Papers Ltd. (nominee of Dalvinder Singh). As per understanding of the parties, the Sale Deed was not registered and in order to save the stamp duty, it was prepared on old stamp papers of the year 1998 in possession of Dalvinder Singh. An amount of Rs.50 lacs is further claimed to have been re-paid against the borrowed loan amount until August, 2012 to Dalvinder Singh before he expired. Thereafter, his brother Manminder Singh (petitioner/accused) took over the control and avoided taking the balance payment (principal/interest amount) out of the loan amount of Rs.75 lacs and started interfering in the complainant's possession of the said property. M/s Nuway Organics Naturals India Ltd. is stated to be in control of M/s Mohindra Papers Ltd. after transfer of equity.
3. It is further the case of the prosecution that since the petitioner/accused claimed the aforesaid property on the basis of registered Sale Deed executed by the complainant in favour of M/s Mohindra Papers Ltd., he was directed to produce the original Sale Deed as well as Balance Sheet and Annual Returns of M/s Mohindra Papers Ltd. to prove the ownership of the property in question. Also, Shri R.P. Mahindra, earlier Director of M/s Mohindra Papers Ltd. was joined in investigation, who after looking at the copy of the Sale Deed denied his signatures and also stated that so long as he was the Director of the Company till 2002 since its incorporation, no purchase of the said property was made in the name of M/s Mohindra Papers Ltd.
Further, during investigation, office copy of Sale Deed, as claimed to have been registered in Vol. No.1530, Addl. Book No.1 in the year 1998, along with original Peshi Register of 02.12.1998 was seized from the office of Sub-Registrar, Mehrauli, New Delhi. The same reflected that the impugned Sale Deed bearing registration No.5579 had different signatures/handwriting of the Sub-Registrar, on comparison with the preceding and succeeding documents. As such, the same was sent for forensic examination, which confirmed that the signatures of Sub-Registrar were forged. Also, the entries in the Peshi Register pertaining to registration No.5579 had been defaced beyond recognition, which reflected that there was tampering of registration.
It also came up during investigation that the stamp papers which were used for preparation of the Sale Deed were purchased from Ludhiana, Punjab for purchase of some property in 1998 by M/s Mohindra Papers Ltd. and as per Shri R.P. Mahindra, Director of the company, the same were handed over at the time of transferring shares of the company.
Contentions on behalf of the petitioner
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the petitioner is a stranger to the transaction. During the period Dalvinder Singh was alive till 2012, neither any suit/proceeding was filed by the complainant, nor any FIR was initiated. The property is further stated to have been mutated in favour of M/s Nuway Organics Naturals India Ltd. since the equity of M/s Mohindra Papers Ltd. stood transferred in fa
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the nature of the dispute, the petitioner's cooperation in the investigation, and the pending civil suit in granting anticipat....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay in filing an FIR, along with the content of relevant documents and the scope of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., can be valid considerations ....
Anticipatory bail granted when pre-trial incarceration is not justified, emphasizing that such incarceration should not replicate post-conviction sentencing.
The court upheld the right to anticipatory bail based on the absence of prior criminal history and the familial nature of the dispute, emphasizing fair treatment in legal proceedings.
(1) Anticipatory bail – Relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights – While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent misuse of power of arrest and protects innocent individua....
The judgment emphasizes the distinction between civil and criminal disputes, the limited jurisdiction of the court at the stage of discharge or quashing of criminal proceedings, and the exercise of i....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.