Madhya Pradesh High Court

Anand Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 July, 2023

Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 25th OF JULY, 2023
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO. 15524 OF 2023

BETWEEN:-

1. ANAND AGRAWAL S/O LATE SHRI
RAMDAYAL AGRAWAL, AGE 52 YEARS,
OCCUPATION BUSINESS, R/O LALITPUR
COLONY, LASHKAR, GWALIOR

2. SMT. PREETI AGRAWAL W/O SHRI ANAND
AGRAWAL, AGE 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION
HOUSEWIFE, R/O LALITPUR COLONY,
LASHKAR, GWALIOR
........APPLICANTS

(BY SHRI S.S. BANSAL - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION KOTWALI, LASHKAR,
GWALIOR

2. BALDEV THAKUR S/O BHAGWAN DAS,
R/O ASHA HOSPITAL, GOMTI KI FADI,
SIKANDAR KAMPOO, LASHKAR,
GWALIOR
........RESPONDENT

(SHRI ROHIT MISHRA - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
RESPONDENT NO. 1/STATE)
(SHRI D.K. AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE WITH SHRI VIVEK KUMAR
MISHRA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 2)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This application coming on for admission this day, the Court
2

passed the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER

Case diary is available.

2. This is first application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, as they are apprehending their arrest in connection with Case No. RCT 7874/2022 pending before JMFC, Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC.

3. Brief facts are that respondent No. 2/complainant is the brother of Raina Katariya, who was wife of Late Shri Tejuram Katariya. As house bearing No.55/385, Ward No. 55, Madhoganj, Lashkar, Gwalior owned by Late Tejuram Katariya was mortgaged with LIC Finance and they have to deposit an amount of Rs.14,50,000/- to the LIC Finance. They have taken aforesaid amount from the applicants as loan in the form of Pay Orders payable to the LIC Finance and executed a Power of Attorney along with an agreement to sale dated 21.01.2010. All the Pay Orders were valid for a period of six months, whereafter applicants neither gave the money of the aforesaid Pay Orders nor renewed the same. Thereafter, applicant No. 1 - Anand Agrawal impersonated himself as Tejuram Katariya executed registered sale deed dated 19.01.2011 of the aforesaid house bearing No.55/385 in favour of applicant No. 2 - Sharmila Agrawal, who is also known as Preeti Agrawal without paying any consideration amount on the basis of expired Power of Attorney.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as per complainant's complaint, Late Tejuram Katariya died on 29.08.2014 and

during his lifetime, neither he nor his wife Raina made any complaint against the applicants. Respondent No. 2/complainant has no locus standi to file criminal complaint against the applicants, therefore, the impugned order dated 26.11.2022 passed by the Court of JMFC, Gwalior taking cognizance against the applicants are liable to be set aside. He further referring the document dated 20.02.2010 submits that respondent No. 2/complainant himself admitted in the aforesaid document that at the time of execution of agreement to sale deed dated 22.01.2010 Late Tejuram Katariya and Raina Katariya had received the whole consideration amount Rs.22,00,000/- in front of him. He referring the document dated 25.08.2010 executed by Raina Katariya submits that Raina Katariya herself admitted in the aforesaid document that after expiry of the period of Pay Orders, she had received Rs.14,50,000/- through respondent No. 2/complainant. He further submits that it is apparent from the sale deed dated 19.01.2011 that same was executed by the applicant No. 1 - Anand Agrawal as Power of Attorney holder of Late Tejuram Katariya. The applicant No. 1 - Anand Agrawal himself has signed the aforesaid registered sale deed mentioning his name, therefore, it cannot be said that he impersonated himself as Tejuram Katariya and executed the aforesaid sale deed in the name of applicant No. 2. All the allegations alleged against them are totally false. As the case is based on documentary evidence and has been registered against the applicants on the basis of criminal complaint, therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicants is not required. Trial will take certainly long time, therefore, they be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/State as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/complainant have opposed the prayer.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/complainant submitted that it is apparent from the Power of Attorney dated 21.01.2010 itself that the same was valid till 20.01.2011, while sale deed which was executed on 03.08.2012. Hence, the same was executed without any authority. It is apparent from the aforesaid sale deed that the same was executed by the applicant No. 1 by impersonating himself as Tejuram Katariya. Thus, the learned Trial Court has not committed any error in registering the case against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 of IPC. It is further submitted that all the other documents preferred by the applicants are forged and fabricated, therefore, considering the nature of allegations, the applicants are not entitled for anticipatory bail. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 514.

6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

7. Upon perusal of the record, this fact appears undisputed that Late Tejuram Katariya executed Power of Attorney dated 21.01.2010 in favour of applicant No. 1 - Anand Agrawal authorizing him to sale the house bearing No.55/385 along with an agreement to sale dated 21.01.2010 in favour of applicant No. 2. The Power of Attorney executed in favour of the applicant No. 1 - Anand Agrawal was valid till 20.01.2011 and the stamp papers of the disputed sale deed were submitted before the Registrar Office within a year, i.e., before 20.01.2011. It is apparent from the aforesaid sale deed that the same was executed by the applicant No. 1 - Anand Agrawal as Power of Attorney holder of Late Tejuram Katariya. So far as the reliance placed by the

learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 on the case of Pratibha Manchanda (supra), the same is actually on different footings, wherein accused persons sold the complainant's land on the basis of forged and fabricated documents without informing him, therefore, the same is not of any assistance to the respondent No. 2.

8. Under these circumstances and considering the documents referred by the learned counsel for the applicants with regard to the payment of consideration amount, so also looking to the other facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicants deserve for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.

8.1 It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, they be released on bail, subject to condition that they shall remain always present before the Trial Court as and when called and comply with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Certified copy as per rules.

(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2023.07.26 18:49:27 +05'30'