IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Samir Sood - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 35138 of 2020
Decided On : 12-11-2020
anticipatory bail - Real Estate Fraud - IPC 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 - Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a real estate broker, is accused of committing fraud by promising to sell a plot for a certain amount, but later selling it for a lower amount and using the funds for a different property transaction. The complainant alleges that the petitioner did not fulfill the terms of the agreement and committed fraud.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were discrepancies in the dates and signatures on the agreement, and the petitioner's actions raised doubts about the authenticity of the transactions. The court concluded that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary to ascertain the truth.
Issues: Discrepancies in dates and signatures, authenticity of transactions, custodial interrogation of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the discrepancies in the agreement, doubts about the authenticity of the transactions, and the need for custodial interrogation to extract the truth.
Final Decision: The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed, and the court emphasized the need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.145 dated 09.10.2020 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station DLF, Sector-2, District Gurugram.
2. Petitioner is a real estate broker. The FIR was got registered by the power of attorney of Anil Kumar Garg. Complainant claimed himself to be NRI and permanent resident of USA. He is owner of a plot measuring 300 sq. yards in Sushant Lok-II, Gurugram. Petitioner approached him and assured him to get healthy sale consideration for the plot. Petitioner informed the complainant that the plot in question can be sold out for Rs.1.77 crores. Complainant agreed for the sale. Petitioner paid an amount of 8 lacs in cash towards earnest money. Other conditions were also settled.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not find a willing purchaser for an amount of Rs.1.77 crores, rather found a purchaser for an amount of Rs.1.5 crores and the complainant was accordingly informed. Complainant gave his assent to go further with the deal. As per instructions of the complainant, an agreement was prepared with the complainant in which Mohan Singh Assi was shown as purchaser. The said agreement was taken to USA and the complainant signed the same and the petitioner signed as a witness. Agreement to sell dated 28.04.2018 was signed by the complainant on 05.05.2018. Learned Senior Counsel sought to prove the visit of the petitioner to USA for getting the signature of the complainant with reference to his passport, entries of departure on 02.05.2018 and arrival in India on 10.05.2018. Learned Senior Counsel further relied upon General Power of Attorney dated 19.07.2018 in favour of the petitioner which was executed by the complainant in USA. GPA was authorized in USA and was witnessed by two persons in USA. The said document was countered signed by Indian High Commission at USA and thereafter, same was embossed and registered in Gurugram. As per recital in the agreement to sell dated 28.04.2018, the sale deed could have been executed either in the name of the vendee or in favour of his assignee. The vendee prepared to get the property purchased in the name of Smt. Superna Nagpal Chopra and signed himself as a witness to the sale deed. An amount of Rs.70 lacs was paid from the account of vendee and an amount of Rs.80 lacs was paid from the account of Superna Nagpal Chopra. The amount could not be deposited in favour of the complainant and the same was deposited in the account of the petitioner as the complainant did not have any account in India. The request was made by the petitioner for opening the account in India as the tax could not be deposited for want of account of the complainant. Petitioner sent form of Corporation Bank of Gurugram to the complainant for signature and got the same signed as well, but the bank refused to open the account for want of attestation by Indian High Commissioner. Complainant could not move to Indian High Commission due to some health issue. Complainant directed the petitioner orally to purchase alternate property from the said amount. Petitioner entered into a deal with Manoj Kumar (seller) and others in order to purchase 1.10 acre of land. Complainant agreed to the aforesaid transaction. Earnest money of Rs.50 lacs was paid by the petitioner to the seller. Agreement to sell dated 30.06.2019 was executed. All these facts have been verified by ACP, Gurugram in first inquiry. Complainant was informed by the petitioner to deposit tax on this sale proceed(s), but for want of Aadhaar and Pan Cards, the same could not be done. Penalty of Rs.7 lacs was imposed by the department. Complainant asked the petitioner whether he would use his address for preparing Aadhaar and Pan Cards. The needful could be done after the deal, therefore, Aadhaar and Pan Cards were not used by the petitioner in execution of sale deed. Petitioner deposited tax @ 23.3% of the value of sale
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.