Delhi High Court
Yashpal Raikar & Anr. vs The State Of Delhi on 9 July, 2013
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : May 17, 2013
DECIDED ON : 9th July, 2013
+ BAIL APPLN. 314/2009
YASHPAL RAIKAR & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.V.K.Mehra with Mr.S.M.Walawaiker,
Advocates.
versus
THE STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
Mr.Suhail Dutt, with Mr.Azhar
Alam, Advocate for M/s Anirva Developers
Pvt. Ltd.(Intervener).
Mr.Pawan Narang with Mr.Anish Dhingra,
Advocates for Mr.Baleshwar Sharma
(Intervener).
Mr.Sanjiv Sen with Mr.Anoop K.Sinha,
Advocates for the complainant-Nageshwar
Pandey.
Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr.Ravi
Arora-Director.
SI Vijender Singh, Crime Branch.
+ BAIL APPLN. 315/2009
FARMEENA KHAUNTE & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.V.K.Mehra with Mr.S.M.Walawaiker,
Advocates.
versus
THE STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
Mr.Suhail Dutt, Advocate with Mr.Azhar
Bail Appl.Nos.314/09, 315/09 & Crl.M.C.No.2697/12 Page 1 of 13
Alam, Advocate for M/s Anirva Developers
Pvt. Ltd.(Intervener).
Mr.Pawan Narang with Mr.Anish Dhingra,
Advocates for Mr.Baleshwar Sharma
(Intervener).
Mr.Sanjiv Sen with Mr.Anoop K.Sinha,
Advocates for the complainant-Nageshwar
Pandey.
Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr.Ravi
Arora-Director.
SI Vijender Singh, Crime Branch.
Mr.S.M.Walawaiker, Advocate for R-3,4&5
AND
+ CRL.M.C. 2697/2012
RAVINDRA C P NAVELKAR & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Sanjiv Sen, Advocate for the
petitioners.
versus
STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
Mr.Suhail Dutt, Advocate with Mr.Azhar
Alam, Advocate for M/s Anirva Developers
Pvt. Ltd.(Intervener).
Mr.Pawan Narang with Mr.Anish Dhingra,
Advocates for Mr.Baleshwar Sharma
(Intervener).
Mr.Vijay Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr.Ravi
Arora-Director.
SI Vijender Singh, Crime Branch.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
Bail Appl.Nos.314/09, 315/09 & Crl.M.C.No.2697/12 Page 2 of 13
S.P.GARG, J.
BAIL APPLN. 314/2009 & CRL.M.B.No.184/2013, CRL.M.A.Nos.
1052/2013, 5279/2010, 2187/2012, 15689/2012, 19939/2012
&
BAIL APPLN.315/2009 & CRL.M.B.No.189/2013 & CRL.M.A.Nos.
1058/2013 , 5280/2010, 14327/2012
1. Petitioners Ravindra C.P.Navelkar, Yashpal A.Raikar,
Smt.Fermeena P.Khunte and Pradeep Khunte seek bail in FIR
No.131/2008 under Section 406/420/409/120B IPC registered with Police
Station Economic Offences Wing, on 07.08.2008 on Nageshwar Pandey's
complaint alleging cheating of `18 crores on the pretext to sell 35 acres
land in Goa by the petitioners. An Agreement to Sell dated 08.01.2007
was executed at Delhi. On 19.09.2007 Yaspal Raiker, Ravindra
Navelkar's attorney, executed sale deed in favour of M/s Anirva
Developers Pvt.Ltd. represented by him (Sh.Nageshwar Pandey) at
Concanna, Goa. Subsequently, he came to know that the land in question
was already under mortgage with Goa Co-operative bank and was sold to
Smt.Nirupa Pawar in an auction on 29.03.2006. The petitioners
suppressed these material facts and had no clear title to convey.
2. After dismissal of anticipatory bail application, the
petitioners surrendered on 09.01.2009 and were remanded to police
custody till 17.01.2009. On 17.02.2009 while seeking regular bail, they
expressed desire to resolve the matter through Delhi High Court
Mediation and Conciliation Centre. With parties's consent interim bail
was granted as an interim measure to settle the dispute. On 24.03.2009
settlement with M/s Anirva Developers Pvt.Ltd. before the Mediation
Centre was reported. Crl.M.A.No.7216/2009 was moved in bail
application No.314/2009 for cancellation of interim bail. On 03.02.2010
there was a joint request for adjournment as M/s Anirva Developers
Pvt.Ltd. was exploring possibility of settlement with Mr.Nageshwar
Pandey. On 24.05.2010 M/s Anirva Developers urged to cancel the
interim bail as cheques issued by the petitioners for a sum of `35 crores
had bounced. Finally, by an order dated 09.09.2010, interim bail granted
to the petitioners on 17.02.2009 was withdrawn. Petitioners challenged
the order and Supreme Court granted interim bail pending further orders.
While disposing of Special Leave Petitions, Supreme Court granted
limited liberty to the petitioners to move High Court for grant of bail in
view of 'fresh' settlement between the parties which was being finalized
in the form of a consent decree before the competent court as informed by
the parties. The petitioners, thereafter, moved the bail applications.
3. I have heard Additional Public Prosecutor,
informer/complainant Nageshwar Pandey; M/s Anirva Developers
Pvt.Ltd. and Interveners. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that
the matter requires investigation as the petitioners cheated the
complainant of `18 crores by sale of land which was under mortgage and
was subsequently purchased in auction by Mrs.Nirupa Pawar. The parties
attempted to settle the dispute, however, the cheques issued by the
petitioners bounced and they could not arrive at any settlement.
Petitioners' counsel urged to grant bail as the matter was settled and the
possession of the land in question was handed over. Counsel for M/s
Anirva Developers Ltd. vehemently opposed the bail and urged that
company (M/s Anirva Developers Ltd.) was cheated of huge amount of
`18 crores and till date, it has not got the possession of the land. The
property was purchased by Nageshwar Pandey on behalf of the company
and not in his individual capacity. He (Nageshwar Pandey) has been
removed as Director of the company. The amount contributed by the
Directors (Nageshwar Pandey, Baleshwar Sharma, Satish Julka,
Amardeep Julka, Ravi Arora, Baldev Arora and Sunil Julka) has not
been accounted for or returned and the petitioners hatched criminal
conspiracy to cheat the company and opted to withdraw writ petition filed
before High Court without any notice to it. Similar pleas have been taken
by Baleshwar and Ravi Arora.
4. Directions were issued to the parties on 03.04.2013 to
disclose following facts on affidavits:
(i) Who is in possession of the property in dispute at present;
since when; how and in what manner, the possession was delivered
to him.
(ii) Whether the consideration was paid by the individual or on
behalf of company; to whom the consideration was paid and
in what manner it was paid.
(iii) Who are the Directors of M/s. Anirva Developers Pvt. Ltd.
and since when or who is authorised to represent M/s. Anirva
Developers Pvt. Ltd.
(iv) What is the status of the suit filed by Smt.Nirupa Udhav
Pawar at Goa.
(v) Who claims ownership of the land in question i.e. an
individual or the company.
(vi) Any other relevant fact in the knowledge of the parties
concerning the issue.
5. I have minutely scrutinized the affidavits filed in compliance
of the above order and it emerges that at present the land in question is in
possession of Nageshwar Pandey. He (Nageshwar Pandey) disclosed on
affidavit that he is the owner and in possession of the property in question
since the execution of sale deed. The possession was delivered to him by
venders Smt.Nirupa Pawar and R.C.P.Navelkar. The entire consideration
paid by him was from his personal account and no payment was made by
the company. He further disclosed that the land in question was under
mortgage with Goa State Cooperative Bank Limited. However, in WP(C)
No.498/2006 the Bank gave no objection for withdrawal of the writ
petition and the execution of the sale deed in his favour by an order dated
23.12.2009. Finally, the property was sold to him by Smt.Nirupa Pawar
vide sale deed dated 02.02.2010. On M/s Anirva Developers Pvt.Ltd.'s
application consent decree dated 29.08.2012 was passed by Civil Judge,
Mapusa, in which M/s Anirva Developers Pvt.Ltd. had promised to pay
him `15 crores or before 01.07.2012 but it never paid the balance amount
of ` 13.25 crores.
6. Ravindra C.P.Navelkar in his affidavit admitted that the
possession of the land is with Nageshwar Pandey. M/s Anirva Developers
Pvt.Ltd. did not pay the decreetal amount of `15 crores to Nageshwar
Pandey in terms of consent decree dated 29.08.2012 in which he was
given complete discharge with regard to all the claims. Nageshwar
Pandey had paid the consideration in his individual capacity and the
possession of land was handed over to him. The dispute with Smt.Nirupa
Pawar was settled in WP No.498/2006.
7. Shri Satish Julka in his affidavit on behalf of M/s Anirva
Developers Pvt.Ltd. stated that he was its Director since 20.10.2007.
Nageshwar Pandey and Baleshwar Sharma erstwhile directors of the
company were removed w.e.f.12.03.2009. The land in question was
purchased by the Company vide sale deed dated 19.09.2007 and the sale
deed was executed by its director Nageshwar Pandey on behalf of the
company for a total payment of `17,08,12,500/-. The payments were
made by him, Amardeep Julka, Sunil Jukla, Baldev Arora and Ravi Arora
through the company to Ravindra C.P.Navelkar. The petitioners cheated
the company and suppressed the fact that they had given collateral
security of the said property towards loan extended by the bank to Pradeep
Khunte. In an auction sale in 2006 the property was purchased by
Smt.Nirupa Pawar for `1.37 crores. Interim bail was granted by this court
as the petitioners undertook under the settlement dated 16.03.2009 to clear
the title of the property and settle Smt.Nirupa Pawar's and bank's claim
within one year. In the alternative, the petitioners gave post-dated
cheques of `35 crores; out of which `25 crores were against this property.
Instead of clearing the title, the petitioners in collusion with Nageshwar
Pandey entered into a clandestine private agreement and moved petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Crl.Misc. Main 919/2009 for quashing of
FIR No.131/2008 which was dismissed vide order dated 09.09.2010.
Cheques given by the petitioners were dishonoured. It was further
disclosed that settlement with Nageshwar Pandey was recorded in Civil
Suit filed by the company on 29.08.2012 but the same rendered otiose in
view of the fact that the subsequent purchase by Nageshwar Pandey in his
individual capacity was challenged by Smt.Nirupa Pawar. Baleshwar
Sharma and Ravi in their affidavits have also opposed grant of bail to the
petitioners.
8. Bhisham Singh, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police
admitted in the affidavit that during investigation, it emerged that the land
in question was in possession of Nageshwar Pandey pusuant to Sale Deed
executed by Nirupa Pawar in his favour. Agreement to sell dated
08.01.2007 was executed between Ravindra C.P.Navelkar and Nageshwar
Pandey. Subsequently the property was sold by R.C.P.Navelkar through
his attorney Shri Yashpal Raikar in favour of M/s Anirva Developers
Pvt.Ltd. vide registered Sale Deed dated 06.09.2007 for sale consideration
of ` 18 crores approximately which was paid by Nageshwar Pandey, Shri
Baleshwar Sharma, Shri Satish Julka, Shri Amardeep Julka, Shri Ravi
Arora, Shir Baldevl Arora and Shri Sunil Julka as Directors of M/s Anirva
Developers Pvt.Ltd. and in their individual capacity.
9. Apparently, there is inter-se dispute among the Directors of
M/s Anirva Developers Pvt.Ltd. Affidavit filed by the State reveals
Baleshwar Sharma lodged FIR No.84/2010, police station Crime Branch.
Company Petition vide No.CP 74 (ND) 2010 before Company Law
Board, New Delhi has been filed challenging his removal by filing forged
documents in the ROC. Nageshwar Pandey claims ownership after it
purchase from Smt.Nirupa Pawar for `3 crores. Satish Julka, Shri
Amardeep Julka and Baldev claim ownership on the basis of sale deed
dated 19.09.2007 in favour of their company M/s Anirva Developers
Pvt.Ltd.
10. At the time of disposal of SLPs, there was no dispute among
the parties about 'fresh' settlement which was being finalized in the form
of a 'consent' decree before the competent court.
11. Special Civil Suit No.39/2010/C was filed by M/s Anirva
Developers Pvt.Ltd. through Mr.Satish Julka, its Director against
petitioners, Goa State Cooperative Bank Limited, Mrs. Nirupa Pawar and
Nageshwar Pandey for Declaration, Injunction and other consequential
relief. The matter was settled and Compromised Deed (Ex.D-53) was
filed in the said court under order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. M/s Anirva
Developers Pvt.Ltd. abandoned all its claims against the petitioners. It
was noted in the order dated 29.08.2012 that the plaintiff M/s Anirva
Developers Pvt.Ltd. by signing Ex.-52 admitted that they had no claim of
whatsoever nature as against defendant No.1 (Ravindra Navelkar) in
respect to the suit property and discharged him from the claim made
against him in that suit and in all other legal proceedings arising in
relation to the suit property. The suit was decreed in terms of consent
terms filed as Ex.D-53. Names of defendant Nos. 1 to 6 were deleted
from the array of parties. The plaintiffs (M/S Anirva Developers Pvt.Ltd.)
agreed to pay `15 crores to Nageshwar Pandey in full and final settlement
of all claims to the said property and towards giving up, delivering,
transferring of all his rights in the said property in favour of all the
plaintiffs.
12. Taking into consideration all the detailed facts, circumstances
and developments and also considering the fact that the petitioners have
remained in custody in this case for some days and have joined the
investigation as and when required and have parted with the possession of
the property in question, which is admittedly with Nageshwar Pandey,
they deserve bail. Accordingly the petitioners are admitted to bail on their
furnishing personal bond in the sum of `1,00,000/- each with one surety
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. They shall,
however, join the investigation as and when required.
13. Bail applications are accordingly allowed. Pending
applications disposed of.
Crl.M.C.No.2697/2012 & Crl.M.A.Nos.17791/2012, 13644/2012,
16810-16812/2012
14. Petitioners Ravinder C.P.Navelkar and Nageshwar Pandey
have filed Crl.Misc.No. 2697/2012 for quashing of the FIR No.131/2008
stating that the matter has been settled and consent decree dated
29.08.2012 has been passed. As discussed above, all the parties are not
ad-idem about the settlement arrived at by document (Ex.D-53) on the
basis of which the consent decree was passed. The terms and conditions
of the consent decree have not been adhered to. There are specific
allegations against the petitioners for cheating M/S Anirva Developers
Pvt.Ltd. now represented by various other Directors. It is to be
investigated whether Nageshwar Pandey made the payment to the
petitioner in his individual capacity or it was on behalf of the company.
Role of directors in all the transactions is required to be ascertained and
investigated. The FIR and the proceedings emanating from it cannot be
quashed in view of the detailed discussion made above.
15. Crl.M.C.No.2697/2012 is accordingly dismissed. Pending
applications also disposed of.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
July 09, 2013
sa
