JUDGMENT

IA No. 186191/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

IA No. 186201/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 186193/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES)

Date : 06-02-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kunal Cheema, AOR Mr. Kartik Tiwari, Adv.

Ms. Ruchita Kunal Cheema, Adv.

Mr. Raghav Deshpande, Adv.

Mr. Shubham Chandankhede, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Jayant Nath, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rajeev Panday, Adv.

Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR Mr. Vishal Sundaramughan, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh Dingra, Adv.

Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.

Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.

Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv.

Ms. Raavi Sharma, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following

O R D E R

Heard Mr. Kunal Cheema, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents (Accused No. 1 and 2) are represented by Mr. Jayant Nath, the learned Senior Counsel. The State is represented by Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, learned counsel.

2. Notice in this SLP was issued on 18.09.2023, with the following order:

“Heard Mr. Kunal Cheema, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

The counsel submits that the High Court should not have granted anticipatory bail to the two accused (respondent nos. 1 and 2) as they have cheated multiple other people with similar kind of modus operandi. It is further submitted that for the flats in question, a registered sale deed was executed and the accused have failed to discharge their burden despite taking around Rs. 1.39 Crore from the petitioner/complainant.

Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.

Dasti in addition, is permitted.

Liberty to serve the learned Standing Counsel for the State.”

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the parties would indicate that the present matter arises out of two registered sale deeds, both dated 23.08.2022 (Annexures P-1 and P-2).

4. Admittedly, the total consideration agreed upon as the price for the flats was Rs. 4,25,00,000/-. The petitioner has produced a chart showing that Rs. 1,37,71,402/- plus TDS has been remitted by the petitioner towards purchase of the flats.

5. The case of the complainant is that although he is ready with the balance sum, to be paid to the vendor or to the Bank, as per the terms of the sale deeds, the respondents are refusing to finalise sale transaction by accepting the balance payment and handing over possession of the two flats.

6. On the above, Mr. Jayant Nath, learned Senior Counsel would submit that it is the complainant who has failed to make the payment within time and the vendor should not be blamed for the non-finalisation of the sale transaction.

7. Having considered the rival submission and the willingness of the petitioner to tender the balance sum within two weeks from today, we deem it appropriate to say that the respondents as vendors, must also be prepared to accept the balance sum, which could either be tendered to the Bank or to the vendors as per the sale agreements dated 23.08.2022 and then complete their part of the transaction.

8. It is made clear that if the accused show reluctance to honour their commitments even after tendering the agreed upon balance consideration sum by the petitioner, the benefit of pre-arrest bail granted by the High Court will have to be recalled.

9. List on 4th March 2024.

(DEEPAK JOSHI) (KAMLESH RAWAT)

COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR