Ruchi Talreja vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 4286 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      BAIL APPLN. 874/2010
       RUCHI TALREJA                        ..... Petitioner
                         Through   Mr. Sidhartha Luthra, Sr. Advocate
                                   with Mr. Sameer Mendiratta,
                                   Advocate.
                   versus
       STATE                          ..... Respondent
                         Through   Ms. Fizani Hussain, APP.
       CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                            ORDER

% 14.09.2010

1. This is an application for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the

applicant states that the applicant is an innocent house wife, who is not

a signatory of any of the documents and being a lady she is entitled to

benefit of proviso to Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 ( Code for short). It is submitted that the applicant has two

children, who are dependent on her. Son of the applicant is studying in

second year college and the daughter is in 9th class. It is stated that the

applicant recently in May, 2010 had suffered Jaundice and is under

treatment for Thyroid. He further states that the interim protection was

granted by this Court by order dated 17th May, 2010, but the applicant

was never called to join investigation. Learned counsel for the applicant

Bail Application 874/2010 Page 1 submits that the applicant has filed a probate petition in the year 2004

on the basis of the alleged Will of late Mr. Kasturi Lal Kalra, which is

partly in her favour and is pending. It is stated that the applicant has

disputes with her mother Ms. Sunita Kalra.

2. The applicant has been named in FIR No.111/2010 under Sections

420/406/467/468/471/34 Indian Penal Code which was recorded on a

complaint made by Ms. Santosh Mittal. It is alleged in the FIR that the

applicant and her husband Mr. Chandra Pal Talreja had represented and

claimed that the property bearing No. 44-PP Block, Pitam Pura, Delhi

was owned by the father of the applicant late Mr. Kasturi Lal Kalra. The

said Mr. Kasturi Lal Kalra had sold the said property to one Mr. Vaid

Prakash and husband of the applicant had purchased the said property

from Mr. Vaid Prakash. Both transactions being on the basis of

documents like agreement to sell, power of attorney, Will etc. Mr.

Chandra Pal Talreja and the applicant had produced registered Wills of

late Mr. Kasturi Lal Kalra in favour of Mr. Vaid Prakash and by Mr. Vaid

Prakash in favour of Mr. Chandra Pal Talreja. In the FIR it is stated that

the complainant relied upon the statements made by Mr. Chandra Pal

Talreja and the applicant, who had assured that there was no

Bail Application 874/2010 Page 2 discrepancy in the documents. On the basis of the statements and the

assurances given by the applicant and Mr. Chandra Pal Talreja, the

complainant purchased the first floor of the said property with roof

rights from them on execution of documents like agreement to sell,

power of attorney etc. on 1st August, 2008. These documents were

registered. The complainant thereafter took possession and put her

locks. It is alleged in the FIR that in October, 2009, the complainant

noticed that the locks had been broken and Mr. Chandra Pal Talreja and

the applicant had put their belongings. When confronted, the applicant

and Mr. Chandra Pal Talreja had stated that they had temporarily put

some office articles in a room and they shall vacate the same.

Subsequent inquiries revealed that Mr. Chandra Pal Talreja was not the

owner of the property and actually the applicant's mother Ms. Sunita

Kalra was the recorded owner of the property in view of the mutation

effected by the DDA in their records after death of late Mr. Kasturi Lal

Kalra. The applicant on 3rd May, 1995 had executed a registered

relinquishment deed in favour of her mother Ms. Sunita Kalra pursuant

to which mutation was effected by the DDA in favour of Ms. Sunita Kalra

by their letter dated 8th February, 1996.

Bail Application 874/2010 Page 3

3. As per the prosecution the two Wills; registered Will of late

Kasturi Lal Kalra dated 26th February, 1987 in favour of Vaid Prakash and

Will dated 18th March, 1990 by Vaid Prakash in favour of Chandra Pal

Talreja have been found to be fabricated documents and as per the

records available in the Sub-Registrar Office, Kashmere Gate, these are

not registered documents. The fact that the applicant has filed a probate

petition in respect of a different Will of late Mr. Kasturi Lal Kalra

establishes that these two Wills are fabricated.

4. Learned APP has pointed out that in the present case the

applicant was not a dormant or a salient spectator, who was not

involved or a participant in the transaction. The property belonged to

her late father. She had executed a relinquishment deed in 1995 and

thereafter the property was mutated in the name of her mother Ms.

Sunita Kalra in the records of the DDA. Ms. Sunita Kalra has filed a civil

suit against the applicant and the same is pending disposal.

5. It is submitted by the learned APP that it is impossible to believe

that the applicant was not aware of the sale transaction and had not

participated in the same. She has again drawn attention to the

allegations made in the FIR and the active role performed by the

Bail Application 874/2010 Page 4 applicant. It is submitted that the applicant is a party to fraud even if she

has not signed papers and the complainant made to part with Rs. 14 lacs

by concealing and stating wrong facts and on the basis of fabricated

documents. The money has vanished and the complainant has been left

high and dry. She has paid substantial amount of Rs. 14 lacs but secured

no rights.

6. With regard to medical condition of the applicant no documents

have been placed on record. Learned APP on instructions from the

Investigating Officer, states that the applicant was suffering from

Jaundice but now she has recovered. It is stated that the Investigating

Officer did not issue any notice for interrogation of the applicant as she

is a lady but had visited her house for the purpose of investigation and it

is alleged that the applicant did not cooperate.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the anticipatory bail application is

dismissed. Observations made in this order are for the purpose of the

disposal of the anticipatory bail application and will not be construed as

expression of opinion on merits binding on trial court.

SEPTEMBER 14, 2010                                   SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NA

Bail Application 874/2010                                              Page 5