Delhi High Court
Shiv Charan Sharma vs State (Govt. Of Nct Delhi) on 20 December, 2018
$~26 & 27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 20.12.2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 1813/2017 & Crl.M.A.48936/2018
SHIV CHARAN SHARMA ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT DELHI) ..... Respondent
+ BAIL APPLN. 1817/2017
SH MANOJ SHARMA ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent : Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State.
SI Sandeep, Police Station North Rohini.
Mr. S.A. Khan, Adv. for the Central Bank of
India.
Ms. Chanan Parwani with Mr. Samar
Kachwaha, Advs for the complainant.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
20.12.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioners seek anticipatory bail in FIR No.296/2016 under
BAIL APPLN.1817/2017
Sections 420/120B IPC, Police Station North Rohini.
2. The allegations in the FIR are that the complainant is an owner
of a property bearing No.G-23/183, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi. The
petitioners had approached the complainant for entering into a
collaboration agreement for reconstruction of the subject property. It
is alleged that once the subject property was demolished, the
petitioners stated that they had run short of funds and represented to
her that they could obtain loan in her name or her son's name for
financing the project.
3. It is alleged that petitioners had assured that the property would
always be secured and loan would be obtained only for the purposes
of construction. It was represented that the petitioners shall ensure that
there is no liability on the complainant and that they shall pay the
instalments and settle the dues of the bank.
4. It is alleged that after the loan was taken in the name of the
complainant and her son, the petitioners failed to construct the
property or discharge the liability of the loan. It is alleged that there is
a threat of auction by the Bank from which loan was taken in the
name of the complainant.
5. Petitioners filed the subject applications seeking anticipatory
bail. On 11.09.2017, it was represented that the parties had entered
into a settlement and some modalities were to be worked out.
BAIL APPLN.1817/2017
Accordingly, this Court granted interim protection to the petitioners.
Parties were also referred to mediation.
6. Mediation Settlement Agreement dated 06.11.2017 was
executed. As per the settlement, the petitioners had assured the
complainant that they shall abide by the One Time Settlement (OTS)
entered into with the Bank and pay the settlement amount and after
payment of the OTS amount, physical possession and title documents
of the property would be got released from the Central Bank of India
and handed over to the complainant and thereafter they shall seek for
quashing of the subject FIR.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
had other loan transactions with the Central Bank of India apart from
the subject loan transaction and had entered into a composite OTS
with the Bank for all the four loan accounts. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners had paid the settlement amount
as per the OTS and had, in fact, as per his version, paid more than the
OTS amount. He submits that the OTS was settled at Rs.2.75 crores
and the petitioners had paid Rs.3.87 crores.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that despite the
settlement and the assurances given by the petitioners that the
complainant's property would be got released from the Bank and the
title papers handed over with 'no objection' from the Bank, the same
has not been done and the bank had put the property of the
BAIL APPLN.1817/2017
complainant for auction, however, no bids were been received.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that the
petitioners have other assets which have been mortgaged with the
Bank to secure the other loan transactions to which the complainant is
not a party. She further submits that the petitioners have paid a
substantial amount to the Bank in the other loan accounts and have not
paid any amount in the loan account which is secured against the
property of the complainant. It is submitted that the intention of the
Petitioners is to have the complainant's property auctioned and secure
their personal property.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the Central Bank, who was put
to notice, has submitted that the OTS was a one-time offer, which was
time bound and since the petitioners have failed to comply with the
OTS, the same is lapsed and, as on date, Rs.105.532 lakhs are
outstanding against the four loan accounts, to which the petitioners are
the party. Learned counsel for the Central Bank further submits that
the Bank is taking action in accordance with law and have already
filed an original application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, to
which both the petitioners as well as the complainant are parties and
are appearing.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
have already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal impugning the
claim of the Bank as the Bank has not given due credit for the
BAIL APPLN.1817/2017
amounts paid to the Bank.
12. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioners had given an
assurance to the complainant that they shall have the loan account
settled with the Central Bank and the property of the complainant
released. The petitioners have failed to comply with the assurances
given to the complainant and even abide by the Settlement
Agreement, which is evident from the fact that the bank is proceeding
further with the recovery of its dues and as per the learned counsel
appearing for the Bank, Rs.105.532 lakhs are still outstanding against
the petitioners. As per the Bank substantial amount if due in the loan
accounts that are secured by the property of the complainant. It is
stated that Petitioners have made part payments in other loan accounts
which are secured by their personal property.
13. Petitioners were granted interim protection by this Court on
11.09.2017 on the assurance that they shall settle with the complainant
and the petitioners have clearly failed to abide by the Settlement
Agreement and they are clearly in breach of the settlement, I am of the
view that the petitioners are no longer entitled to any indulgence by
this Court. Accordingly, the interim protection granted to the
petitioners by this Court by order dated 11.09.2017 is liable to be
vacated.
14. The conduct of the Petitioners shows that while payments have
been deposited by the petitioners with the bank, same has been
BAIL APPLN.1817/2017
deposited against the loan accounts which are secured by their own
property and payment has not been deposited against the loan
accounts which are secured by the property of the complainant. This
clearly shows that the petitioners have no intention of preserving the
property of the complainants and have prima facie misled the
complainant.
15. In view of the above, I find no merit in the petitions. The
petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
16. Order Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
DECEMBER 20, 2018/st
BAIL APPLN.1817/2017
