Delhi High Court
Hira Singh Rawat vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 February, 2011
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 11th February, 2011
Date of Order: 25th February, 2011
+Bail Appln 1860 of 2010
%
25.02.2011
HIRA SINGH RAWAT ... Petitioner
Through: Mr Munish Kr. Sharma, Advocate
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Addl. PP
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. This application for anticipatory bail has been made by the applicant
who is involved in a case under Section 420/380/34 IPC. Complainant in this
case is Poonam Sodi W/o Shri Pyare Lal. She was a young uneducated
woman. She married an old person, who was more than 60 years older to
her, in order to look after him and his children. She alleged that accused
exploited this situation and started coming to her house and developed
physical relations with her. He continued exploiting her sexually and also
extracted money from her. He took away ATM card of her husband and
withdrew money and thereafter he got her husband's property transferred in
her name under pressure and then got her husband's property transferred in
his own name. No consideration was paid to her for the transfer. She
realized this when accused asked her to vacate the premises telling her that
she was a tenant there. The complaint of complainant gives complete
account of her financial and sexual exploitation.
2. The contention of the applicant is that he is a genuine purchaser of the
property and entire story has been cooked up by the complainant to wriggle
out of the genuine sale deed.
3. I have perused the Sale Deed, copy of which has been placed on
record. A perusal of the sale-deed would show that sale consideration shown
in the sale deed was ` 7,70,000/- and Corporation Tax and Stamp Duty was `
46,200/-. Thus, the total money allegedly paid by the accused was `
8,16,200/- . The entire payment is alleged to have been made in cash to the
complainant. The applicant/accused has placed on record a salary certificate
showing that he is working as Driver with Deepak Tourist Bus Service at a
monthly salary of ` 10,000/- from 1st November, 2010. There is nothing on
record to show that he was in service prior to 1st November, 2010. He is a
married man and it is unimaginable that a person with ` 10,000/- as monthly
salary, having wife and children, would have more than ` 8.00 lakh in cash
with him. No source of this money has been explained by the accused.
Complainant's averment that she was paid nothing as sale consideration and
she was deceived by the accused seems to be quite probable. Another
aspect of the Sale-Deed is that the title deed in favour of the complainant,
which also was got executed by the accused to transfer property from her
husband to her, is based on a notarized Power of Attorney. It is settled law
that in order to transfer a property on the basis of a Power of Attorney, the
Power of Attorney itself must be a registered Power of Attorney and an
unregistered Power of Attorney does not entitle Power of Attorney holder to
transfer the property. A Power of Attorney giving power to sell is as good as a
conveyance deed and under Registration Act it is necessary that if a
document transfers property of more than ` 100/-, it must be registered. Thus
the sale deed in favour of Jyoti Bist i.e. complainant, which she alleged was
got manipulated by the accused, itself was a nonest Sale Deed and sale in
favour of the applicant based on the basis of nonest document could not be
held valid. The case has to be investigated from two aspects, one,
wherefrom the entire sale consideration, allegedly paid in cash, was
generated by the accused and second, how was a sale deed in favour of the
complainant itself was registered on the basis of a notarized Power of
Attorney at Sub Registrar's office.
4. I find that it is not a case where anticipatory bail should be granted to
accused who seems to have conspired along with other accused persons to
deprive the complainant of her property. The custodial interrogation would be
necessary. The application is dismissed.
FEBRUARY 25, 2011 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm
