Ram Bhardwaj vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2016 Latest Caselaw 74 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                  Judgment delivered on : January 06, 2016
+     BAIL APPLN. 2820/2014
      RAM BHARDWAJ                                         ..... Petitioner
                         Through:      Mr.A.V. Shukla, Advocate.

                         versus

      STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                                ..... Respondent
                    Through:            Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public
                                       Prosecutor for the State with WSI
                                       Renu, Police Station Sarai Rohilla.
                                       Mr.P.P. Ahuja & Mr.J.S. Kohli,
                                       Advocates for Respondent No. 2 with
                                       respondent no.2 in person.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

                                   JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. By this petition filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.), the petitioner

is seeking the anticipatory bail in a case registered as FIR No.

975/2014 under Section 448/506/380 of IPC registered at Police

Station Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.

2. The background of instant dispute arises out of an agreement

for sale of property by the complainant - C.S. Ahluwalia in favour of

the applicant. As there was loan against the property, one Mr. Avtar

Singh entered into an agreement with the complainant and repaid the

loan in respect of the disputed property bearing No.9935, K.L. Gupta

Complex, New Rohtak Road, Delhi. The possession of the property

was already with the petitioner. To have the sale deed registered in the

name of the petitioner, he filed a civil suit before the Senior Civil

Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, seeking injunction, in which

summons have been issued in the name of complainant and Mr. Avtar

Singh.

3. The instant case has been registered against the applicant at the

instance of complainant - C.S. Ahluwalia, who is the owner of

property bearing No.9935, K.L. Gupta Complex, New Rohtak Road,

Delhi and agreed to sell the same to the applicant for a consideration

of Rs.70 lacs, out of which he has received Rs.5 lacs as token money.

In this regard a 'Receipt' was executed between them on 29.12.2012

and on the same day, the possession of the property was handed over

to the applicant.

4. Record of this case also shows that there is a 'Bayan karta'duly

signed by the complainant on 22.11.2013, stating therein that he has

handed over the possession of the property to the petitioner and he has

no concern over the said property.

5. Mr. A.V.Shukla, counsel for the petitioner contended that the

complainant even after signing the 'bayan karta' on 22.11.2013, he

filed the instant complaint at the instance of Mr. Avtar Singh. It is

further contended on behalf of the petitioner that a notice under

Section 160 of Cr. P.C. has been received by the petitioner and he had

also joined the investigation. It is further contended on behalf of the

petitioner that initially the FIR was registered under Section 448/506

of IPC, which are bailable offence but in order to harass the petitioner,

the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC was included for the

reasons best known to the Police Authorities.

6. While referring to the order dated 23.12.2014, passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissing his bail application, it

is contended that the said application has been rejected solely upon

considering the copy of the 'Bayan Karta' and mentioning the

witnesses thereon, however it is undeniable that the statement has

been written and signed by the Complainant.

7. Order sheet dated 08.01.2015, reveals that the counsel for the

petitioner on instructions submitted that by handing over the

possession of the premises in question to the Complainant, his civil

suit would be rendered infructuous and without prejudice to his rights,

a sum of Rs.65 lacs would be deposited with the Registrar General of

this Court within four weeks and the property dispute can be amicably

resolved through intervention of Avtar Singh, whose name finds

mention in the statement recorded on 22.11.2013 of the Complainant.

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State also did not averse the

possibility of an amicable resolution of the dispute. Accordingly,

subject to petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.65 lacs with the Registrar

General of this Court within four weeks, parties alongwith Avtar

Singh were directed to appear before Delhi High Court Mediation and

Conciliation Centre on 7th February 2015 at 11:00 a.m. and thereafter

as and when called.

8. Perusal of order sheet dated 25.3.2015 reveals that Mediated

Settlement Agreement of 03.03.2015 was arrived at and counsel for

the petitioner submitted that the settlement between the parties has

been enacted upon. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, petitioner was

admitted to bail upon furnishing his bail bond in the sum of

Rs.10,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction

of the Investigating Officer.

9. On 28.04.2015, an application being Crl.M.A. No.6209/2015

under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of Avtar Singh

seeking cancellation of interim protection granted to the petitioner

vide order dated 25.03.2015. On 03.08.2015, petitioner had paid a

sum of Rs.10 lac in cash to respondent No.2 - Avtar Singh and

counsel for the petitioner on instructions submitted that outstanding

amount of Rs.55 lac will be paid to respondent No. 2 within a period

of three months and respondent No. 3 - C.S. Ahluwalia, submitted

that after receiving 'No objection' from respondent No.2, he will

transfer the title of the property in question in favour of the petitioner

before the next date of hearing.

10. Ultimately, on 04.12.2015 this Court while perusing the

previous order sheets, recalled the order dated 25.03.2015 granting

concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and fixed the bail

application for re-hearing on 14th December 2015.

11. Ms. Manjeet Arya, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

submitted that the petitioner is charged under Section 380 IPC which

is a non-bailable offence and the petitioner has not complied with the

terms of settlement arrived at between the parties through the medium

of Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre, and the case is

at an initial stage, therefore, the petitioner ought not be granted bail in

this case.

12. I have heard the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also

gone through the material placed on record.

13. Upon careful scrutiny of the case what this Court observes is

that the petitioner was granted interim protection only on the ground

of settlement being arrived at between the parties before the Delhi

High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre on 3rd March 2015 and

on non-compliance of the terms of the settlement only, the application

for cancellation of bail was allowed.

14. This Court is conscious of the fact that the grounds for rejection

of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and for

the cancellation of bail granted, have to be considered and dealt with

on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are

necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already

granted. While cancelling the bail, the Court must see whether the

accused attempted to interfere with the due course of administration

of justice or evaded or attempted to evade the due course of justice or

abused the concession granted to the accused in any manner.

15. This Court observes that it is admitted fact between the parties

that the petitioner was granted bail primarily on the ground of

settlement agreement arrived at between the parties through the

medium of Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre. This

Court also observes that on 3rd August 2015, counsel for the petitioner

on instructions submitted that the outstanding amount of Rs.55 lac

would be tendered to respondent No. 2 within a period of three

months. It also records that complainant - respondent No. 3 herein

submitted that after receiving 'no objection' from respondent No. 2,

he will transfer the title of the property in question in favour of the

petitioner. Order dated 4th December 2015 records the undertaking of

the petitioner that he has paid a sum of Rs.10 lac to respondent No. 2

and the balance amount would be paid within a period of three months

and the fact is that the petitioner has failed to deposit any amount till

date.

16. No doubt, there are civil litigations pending between the parties

and the same can be adjudicated by leading cogent evidence. The bail

granted to the petitioner vide order dated 8th January 2015 was based

on undertaking of the petitioner and despite sufficient time being

granted to the petitioner, he has failed to perform his part of

obligation and the petitioner has not come forward to explain the

circumstances, due to which he could not perform his part of

settlement.

17. In the considered opinion of this Court, if a party is permitted to

resile from an undertaking given to the Court, the same would

completely destroy the sanctity to such solemn undertaking and would

encourage dishonesty and disrespect for the judicial process. It would

also undermine the majesty and authority of Courts, and instill doubts

in the minds of the litigating public with regard to the efficacy of the

judicial process and, in particular, with regard to the process of

accepting undertaking by the Court and of the efficacy of the

undertaking given to the Court by a party.

18. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the facts and

circumstances of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner

has not complied with the terms of the settlement arrived at before

Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre, and the petitioner

cannot be allowed to wriggle out from performing his part of

obligation. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the

petitioner is not entitled to have the benefit of concession of

anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the

petitioner is dismissed.

19. Needless to say that anything observed in this petition, shall not

have any bearing on the merit of the case during trial.

20. With aforesaid directions, the bail application stand disposed

of.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE JANUARY 06, 2016 pkb