Delhi High Court
Akhil Kakar vs State on 18 December, 2019
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Bail Appl. No. 990/2019 & Crl.M.A. 41558/2019
AKHIL KAKAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajinder Pal Singh,
Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. G.M.Farooqui, Ld. APP
for the state with Insp. Satpal,
ATO and SI Raj Kumar PS:
Karol Bagh.
Mr. Vivek Sood, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. D.K.Yati
and Mr. Ajay Khurana,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
ORDER
% 18.12.2019
CRL M.A. 41558/2019 (Cancellation of interim protection).
1. This is an application filed under Section 482 Cr.p.C. by
complainant Ajay Khurana for cancellation of interim protection
granted to the petitioner Akhil Kakar in FIR no. 537/2018, under
Section 420/34 IPC, PS Karol Bagh, Delhi.
2. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld.
APP that Petitioner/accused and his father Ramesh Kakar have
been granted interim protection by this Court on the ground of
settlement dated 24th August, 2019. As per the said settlement,
petitioner was to make the total payment of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- to the
complainant towards full and final settlement of all accounts,
disputes and issues. It is submitted that accused Ramesh Kakar had
issued cheque bearing no. 66482 dated 16.11.2019 amounting to
Rs. 30,00,000/- as first instalment in favour of the complainant
which on presentation dishonoured due to „Insufficient fund‟. In
these circumstances, it is prayed that the present application for
cancellation of interim protection of the petitioner/accused Akhil
Kakar be allowed in the interest of justice.
3. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for petitioner/accused has
argued that interim protection should not be withdrawn as he was
granted the same on merits and not on the basis of compromise.
4. I have considered the rival submissions. I have asked Ld.
Counsel for the petitioner whether he intends to argue on the main
bail application as well. He, however, submitted that he will
confine his arguments on the application for cancellation of interim
protection filed by the respondent.
5. Perusal of record reveals that vide order dated 01.05.2019,
petitioner/accused Akhil Kakar was granted interim protection and
the relevant portion of order dated 01.05.2019 runs as under:-
"As per the allegations in the FIR, the
complainant-purported gullible purchaser of a
property, walked into the father of the applicant
and entered into an Agreement to Sell for the
purchase of an immovable property, and, there
under, paid Rs. 90,00,000/- in cash. It comes to
be pointed out that demonetisation took place on
09.11.2016. In para 5 of the bail application, the
applicant has also specifically averred that the
complainant was having long term relationship
with his father and having money lending and
financial transactions and that the applicant‟s
father repaid the entire outstanding amount, the
principal and the interest, through bank
transactions from 10.02.2017 to 14.02.2018. FIR
is however, totally silent on such a material fact,
if, it is so. Mr. Karyal, Ld. APP on instruction
from IO SI Raj Kumar present in the court,
submits that the case diary of the IO does not
reflect anything on the facts as have come to be
stated in para 5 of the bail application. Suffice, it
would be to observe, the FIR was lodged on
24.12.2018. Let a status report be filed two days
before the adjournment date. Till then, no
coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant.
Applicant shall however join the investigations as
and when called for by the IO.
At this stage, Ld. Senior counsel for the
complainant, on instructions, submits that the
complainant is not averse to resolve the matter
amicably to which, Ld. Counsel for the applicant
readily joins. In the view thereof, meantime, the
parties are also referred to Delhi High Court
mediation and Conciliation Centre (Samadhan)
for 07.05.2019 at 3.30 p.m.
6. Thereafter, the case was taken up on 02.08.2019 and
27.08.2019. The case was settled in Mediation and it is reflected in
the order dated 27.08.2019 and on the said ground, interim order
was continued. The said order runs as under:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
settlement has been arrived between the parties
for an amount of Rs. 1,00,50,000/-, and first
instalment is to be paid on 16.11.2019. Copy has
been given to learned APP.
Ld. APP for the State seeks time to verify the
same.
List on 08.01.2020.
Interim order to continue."
7. Perusal of record, thus, reveals that the matter was amicably
resolved vide settlement deed dated 24th August, 2019 arrived at
between complainant and accused Mr. Ramesh Kakar. However,
terms and conditions of the above settlement deed were not adhered
to. The relevant para 5 of the settlement deed runs as under:-
"that the first party along with his Advocate shall
appear before the Hon‟ble Delhi High court at the
time of the hearing/s on the anticipatory bail
applications of party of Second Part and his son
namely Akhil Kakar, bearing Bail Application no.
1229/2019 and Bail Application no. 990/2019,
pending before the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court and
listed for hearing on 27.08.2019 and both the
parties will make joint request to Hon‟ble court to
extend the interim protection granted to party of
Second Part and his son namely Akhil Kakar on
their anticipatory bail applications for any date
after 16.11.2019 i.e. date meant for First
instalment of above settlement amount. On
clearance/payment of first instalment of Rs.
30,00,000/-; both the parties shall pray before the
Hon‟ble High court to grant anticipatory bail to
Party to Second Part Mr. Ramesh Kakar and his
son namely Akhil Kakar in connection with FIR
No. 537/2018 under Section 420/34 IPC
registered at PS Karol Bagh."
8. Perusal of the record reveals that as per settlement deed
dated 24.08.2019 it was agreed that on clearance/payment of first
instalment of Rs. 30,00,000/-, both the parties shall pray to the
court to grant anticipatory bail to accused Ramesh Kakar and his
son Akhil Kakar. Since the petitioner has failed to adhere to the
terms and condition of the settlement deed as the cheque amounting
to Rs. 30,00,000/- given by Ramesh Kakar to the complainant in
lieu of settlement has been dishonoured on account of „funds
insufficient‟, interim protection granted to the petitioner/accused
Akhil Kakar stands withdrawn.
9. Application is accordingly disposed of.
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 990/2019
List on 08.01.2020.
BRIJESH SETHI, J
DECEMBER 18, 2019
Ak
