Raghuvirdas Vaishnav vs State Of Mp.
2021 Latest Caselaw 7697 MP

                                    1                     M.Cr.C. No.33699/2021



             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         M.Cr.C. No.33699/2021
       (Raghuvirdas Vaishnav and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)

Jabalpur, Dated 23.11.2021
      Shri Ved Prakash Nema, counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Akhilendra Singh, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
      Shri Nishant Datt, counsel for the complainant/objector.
                                    ORDER

     Crime               Under Section                     Police Station

     26/21        406, 420, 467, 468 of IPC              Sanjeevni Nagar
                                                         District Jabalpur

As declared by the petitioner, this is the first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. 2- The allegation against the petitioner is that he deceived the complainant on the pretext of selling a plot admeasuring 4400 sq.ft. for a consideration of Rs.34 lakhs. A place was shown as a plot to the complainant and a sale deed was executed in his favour mentioning that after getting satisfied with all the papers regarding title, the complainant got the sale deed executed in his favour and also obtained possession of the plot. But later, it was found that no such plot exists on the place shown to him. Therefore, the complainant approached the police and lodged FIR. 3- Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant has not disputed his title over the plot and the sale deed executed in his favour. Even after taking possession after satisfying himself he is making false allegations. Reason for making such allegation is that a cheque of Rs.5 Lakh was issued by the complainant for payment of consideration of the plot purchased by him which was bounced by the Bank. The petitioner filed a

complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act bearing registration No.169/2009 and only to counter that case and pressurize the petitioner, the complainant has filed the present FIR. 4- It is further submitted that after direction of the Court dated 16.11.2021, he tried to amicably settle the dispute but the complainant did not co-operate. He tried his level best but due to non-cooperation of the complainant nothing could be done on the spot. He has filed I.A. No.20209/2021 stating the facts on affidavit, therefore, he cannot be faulted for non-compliance of the direction of the Court.

5- With regard to Patwari report relied upon by the complainant (page 59-61) of the petition, it is submitted that the spot inspection has been conducted behind the back of the petitioner. It bears signature of the complainant and the encroachers as stated by him but does not bear signatures of any of the Panch witnesses which shows that the independent witnesses does not support the action of the complainant or the revenue inspector. Further, this report does not relate to Khasra No.28/7 (old khasra No.) and 28/33 and relates to some other land. Thus, it appears that this document has been prepared with a malafide intention only to harass the complainant and cannot be relied upon.

6- Lastly, it is averred that the petitioner is still ready to amicably settle the dispute and to refund the money received by him from the complainant, therefore, he be granted bail.

7- Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Md. Ibrahim & others vs. State of Bihar and another: (2009) 8 SCC 751.

8- In reply, counsel for the complainant/objector as well as learned Public Prosecutor have submitted that though they are not disputing the documents with regard to the title of the petitioner of

the plot sold to him, and also the sale deed executed in their favour but it is submitted that after purchase of the plot, when he visited the spot with the purpose of constructing house, to his surprise some other persons were raising construction on the plot. He approached the revenue authorities and applied for demarcation. The demarcation was conducted by the Revenue Inspector and it was found that the plot sold to him does not exists on the spot shown to him but the Khasra Numbers and layout which have been mentioned in the sale deed executed in his favour are situated about a kilometer away from the plot shown to him. This document cannot be disputed at this stage.

9- Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the Khasra No.28/7 (old khasra No.) and 28/33 are not mentioned even in the registered sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner in this regard is not sustainable.

10- With regard to the complaint case filed by the petitioner under the Negotiable Instrument Act it is submitted that these cases are related to the cheques given for security after execution of agreement of sale of the disputed plot. The agreement was executed in the year 2018, while the sale deed was executed in the year 2019. The petitioner has taken cash as agreed between the parties but did not return the cheques kept as security.

11- Explaining the delay in taking action it is submitted that earlier the mother of the complainant died due to COVID-19 infection. The complainant himself got infected with COVID-19. After getting cured, he approached the police and lodged a complaint with police station Sanjeevni Nagar, Jabalpur, who after enquiry submitted a report to CSP Gorakhpur. CSP Gorakhpur also conducted an inquiry and forwarded the report to Superintendent of

Police Jabalpur, who ultimately directed the police to register the FIR.

12- It is further submitted that in all three inquiries referred to above, it was found that the plot allegedly sold to the complainant does not exist on the spot. Therefore, the offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner.

13- Lastly, it is submitted that the complainant is ready to accept the money proposed to be refunded by the petitioner but he is only procrastinating the same on the one pretext or the other and not making genuine efforts to refund the money. Therefore, it appears that the proposal made by the petitioner is only with the purpose of getting relief from this Court and he is not serious about the same. 14- I have heard the parties at length and perused the record. 15- On due consideration of the allegations made, the evidence collected, the submissions of the parties and other facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. 16- Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.

(Virender Singh) JUDGE

Loretta Digitally signed by MRS.

LORETTA RAJ Date: 2021.11.27 11:43:38 +05'30'