Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Judgment reserved on : 27 September, 2023
th
Judgment delivered on: 17 October, 2023
+ BAIL APPLN. 3097/2022 & CRL.M.A. 9335/2023 (Additional
documents)
TRILOK CHAND CHAUDHARY ….. Petitioner
Through: Ms. Rebecca M. John, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Kanwal
Chaudhary and Mr. Gaurav Sharma,
Advocates.
Versus
STATE ….. Respondent
Through: Mr.Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for
State.
Mr.Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Kavita Jha, Ms. Simran
Chaudhary and Mr. Aditeya Bali,
Advocates for complainant along with
complainant in person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
JUDGMENT
1. The present application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in FIR
No. 71/2022 under Sections 420/406/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC) registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg,
New Delhi.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2023
14:35:54
BAIL APPLN. 3097/2022 Page 1 of 10
2. The anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed
th
by the Sessions Court vide order dated 11 October, 2022.
3. Interim protection was granted to the applicant by the Court vide
th
order dated 28 February, 2023 subject to the applicant depositing a sum of
Rs.2 crores with the Registrar General of this Court and the applicant joining
the investigation and fully cooperating in the same.
4. The present FIR was registered on the complaint filed by one Mr. J.K.
Shrivastava (hereinafter complainant) wherein the complainant had alleged
that three accused persons; the applicant herein, Mr. Keshav Ram Saini and
Mr. Vijay Kumar Shrivastava (brother of the complainant, who has since
expired) had fraudulently tricked the complainant into parting with more
than Rs.25 crores under the guise of selling a Farm House, No. 27, Central
Drive, Chattarpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi (hereinafter the Farm House), under
th
an Agreement to Sell dated 7 January, 2011, whereas the accused persons
were neither the owners, nor in possession of the said Farm House.
5. Believing the fraudulent representation of the accused persons that
they are the owners of the aforesaid property, the complainant entered into
th
an Agreement to Sell dated 7 January, 2011 with the applicant, in which
the co-accused Keshav Ram Saini was the confirming party. Pursuant to the
said Agreement to Sell, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.21.35 crores
through banking channels and approximately Rs.4 crores in cash. However,
neither a sale deed was registered in favour of the complainant, nor the
possession was transferred to him.
6. In the Status Report filed on behalf of the State, it has been stated that
in the course of the investigation, it was confirmed that an amount of
Rs.21.35 crores was transferred from the bank accounts of the complainant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2023
14:35:54
BAIL APPLN. 3097/2022 Page 2 of 10
to the bank accounts of the applicant. Out of the total amount received in the
account of the applicant, a sum of Rs.13.20 Crores was transferred to the
account of co-accused Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, brother of the complainant.
7. The investigation further revealed that the actual owners of the said
Farm House were members of the Tiwani Family, who had purchased the
said Farm House in 1990 from one Harbanslal Lal Arora, who was the
Power of Attorney of the original owners i.e., Gujaratis. The applicant was
aware that the property had been sold to the Tiwani family. It was also
confirmed that the physical possession of the said Farm House has been with
the Tiwani family since 1990.
8. In the Supplementary Status Report filed on behalf of the State, it has
been stated that during the investigation, the applicant admitted that he did
not receive the physical possession of the property from co-accused Keshav
Ram Saini and nor did he hand over the same to the complainant. During
th
interrogation, he failed to produce the original Agreement to Sell dated 7
January, 2011 executed by him in favour of the complainant or the
rd
Agreement to Sell dated 23 September, 2008 and General Power of
Attorney executed by co-accused, Keshav Ram Saini, in his favour. As per
rd
the said agreement dated 23 September, 2008, out of a total consideration
of Rs.9.5 crores, Rs. 7.99 crore was to be paid by the applicant to Keshav
Ram Saini in cash and the remaining by cheques/POs. Keshav Ram Saini
has denied having received the aforesaid cash amount from the applicant.
9. It is also stated that the applicant had filed a Criminal Complaint
against co-accused Vijay Kumar Shrivastava at Police Station Suraj Kund,
th
Faridabad, Haryana vide FIR No. 159/2019 dated 19 March, 2019 under
sections 420/406/467/468/471 of the IPC in which it was alleged that co-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2023
14:35:54
BAIL APPLN. 3097/2022 Page 3 of 10
accused Vijay Kumar Shrivastava has cheated the applicant to the tune of
Rs.17 Crores in respect of other property transactions.
th
10. In the Status Report filed on behalf of the State on 18 September,
2023, details of three other FIRs against the applicant have been provided
which are as follows-
th
(i) FIR No. 187/2021, dated 9 January, 2021 under sections
420/406/467/468/471/120B of Indian Penal Code,1860 registered at
Police Station Economic Offences Wing.
th
(ii) FIR No. 155/2015, dated 18 November, 2015 under sections
420/406/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station
Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg, New Delhi.
th
(iii) FIR No. 362/2022, dated 29 June, 2022 under sections
420/506/467/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
registered at Police Station Suraj Kund, Faridabad, Haryana.
11. Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that all
the details with regard to the ownership history of the Farm House were duly
th
disclosed in the Agreement to Sell dated 7 January, 2011 and therefore it
cannot be said that the applicant cheated the complainant. It is further stated
that out of the sum of Rs.21.35 crores received from the applicant through
banking channels, a sum of Rs. 13.20 crore was transferred to Vijay Kumar
Shrivastava, complainant’s brother, to be kept in escrow and be released
after execution of the sale deed in the favour of the complainant. It is further
contended that the present FIR has been filed after an inordinate delay of 11
years after the aforesaid Agreement to Sell was executed, when no civil
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2023
14:35:54
BAIL APPLN. 3097/2022 Page 4 of 10
proceedings could be initiated. Reliance in this regard has been made on the
judgments in Suresh v . Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava, (2005) 3
SCC 670, Hasmukhlal D. Vora & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2022)
SCC Online SC 1732 and Sarabjit Kaur v. The State of Punjab & Anr., in
Criminal Appeal No. 581 of 2023 decided on 01.03.2023.
12. Per contra, it has been submitted on behalf of the State that custodial
interrogation of the applicant is required as he has failed to produce original
documents in respect of the Farm House as well as the proof of payments
made by him to Keshav Ram Saini towards the purchase of the Farm House.
Further, during the course of inquiry, the co-accused Keshav Ram Saini has
denied his signature as the confirming party on the said Agreement to Sell
th
dated 7 January, 2011.
13. In rebuttal, senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that co-
accused Keshav Ram Saini had duly admitted his signature on the
th
Agreement to Sell dated 7 January, 2011 in the anticipatory bail application
filed by him before the Trial Court. As regards the original of the Agreement
th
to Sell dated 7 January, 2011 between the applicant and complainant, it
was submitted that the original of the said Agreement was handed over to
the co-accused Vijay Kumar Shrivastava.
14. Attention of the Court was also drawn to the additional documents
filed on behalf of the applicant to show that payments were made by the
applicant to Keshav Ram Saini as well as Gujaratis.
15. Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that
the applicant along with other co-accused, Keshav Ram Saini and Vijay
Kumar Shrivastava colluded with each other to cheat the complainant. The
applicant had no authority to give money received from the complainant to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2023
14:35:54
BAIL APPLN. 3097/2022 Page 5 of 10
his brother and co-accused Vijay Kumar Shrivastava. Further, the FIR filed
by the applicant against Vijay Kumar Shrivastava completely contradicts the
stand taken by the applicant here that the sum of Rs.13.2 crores was
transferred by the applicant to Vijay Kumar Shrivastava towards escrow. It
is further submitted that the applicant had fraudulently stated in the
th
Agreement to Sell dated 7 January, 2011 that the property had no
encumbrances and that the applicant was the owner of the said property.
16. On the aspect of delay, it is submitted that the delay was on account
of serious medical ailments suffered by the complainant as well as his son.
17. I have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the material on
record.
th
18. A perusal of the Agreement to Sell dated 7 January, 2011 shows that
the applicant had assured the complainant that he is the owner of the Farm
House and is in possession of the same. He had further assured that the Farm
House was free from all kinds of encumbrances and the applicant had agreed
to indemnify the complainant in the event of any defect in title. However,
from the material on record, it appears that the applicant had failed to make
due payments to the previous owners of the said Farm House, including co-
accused Keshav Ram Saini and the Gujaratis for the purchase of the Farm
House. Nothing has been filed to show the payment of Rs. 7.99 crores to
Keshav Ram Saini. Thus, it appears a wrongful representation was made to
the complainant that the applicant was the absolute owner of the aforesaid
Farm House and in possession thereof.
19. The submission of the applicant that out of the total consideration of
Rs.21.35 crores received from the complainant, a sum of Rs.13.2 crores was
transferred to co-accused Vijay Kumar Srivastava, also appears to be false
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2023
14:35:54
BAIL APPLN. 3097/2022 Page 6 of 10
as the applicant himself had filed a criminal case against the said Vijay
Kumar Srivastava at Police Station Suraj Kund, Faridabad, Haryana wherein
he had alleged that Vijay Kumar Srivastava had cheated him to the tune of
Rs. 17.0 crores in respect of the certain other property transactions. Vijay
Kumar Srivastava was arrested pursuant to the said FIR and chargesheet was
also filed in the said FIR. Besides, there were no instructions from the
complainant to transfer the aforesaid amount to the account of his brother.
20. It is also pertinent to note that the three previous FIRs against the
applicant relate to offences involving cheating and forgery in relation to
property transactions. In FIR No. 187/2021, the applicant has been
absconding and process under Section 82 of the CrPC had been initiated
nd
against him. In FIR No. 155/2015, the applicant was arrested on 22
August, 2016 and chargesheet has already been filed. FIR No. 187/2021 has
subsequently been quashed on the ground of settlement. Therefore, it
appears that the applicant is a habitual offender who is involved in other
cases of similar nature.
21. It is vehemently been argued on behalf of the applicant that there has
been an inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR. In my considered view, mere
delay in lodging the FIR by itself cannot be a ground for grant of bail to the
applicant. In this regard, a reference may be made to the judgment in
Edmund S. Lyngdoh v. State of Meghalaya , (2016) 15 SCC 572, where the
Supreme Court has held that mere delay in lodging an FIR by itself cannot
raise doubts about the genuineness of the case of the prosecution The
judgments of Suresh (Supra) and Hasmukhlal D. Vora (Supra) relied upon
by the applicant do not lay down the proposition that delay in filing an FIR
by itself can be ground to set aside the criminal proceedings. It is only one
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2023
14:35:54
BAIL APPLN. 3097/2022 Page 7 of 10
of the factors to be considered by the court. In the present case, the
complainant has given a plausible explanation for delay in registering the
FIR.
22. In Sarabjeet Kaur (Supra), relied upon by the applicant , it was held
that breach of contract would not give rise to the criminal prosecution and
the parties must exhaust civil remedies. However, the said judgment
provides the exception in the event of fraudulent intention to cheat. As noted
above, there is sufficient material on record to show that the applicant
entered into the transaction with the complainant with an intention to cheat
and defraud the complainant.
23. Despite the interim protection given by this court, the applicant has
not fully cooperated with the investigation agency. Further, the applicant has
th
not provided the original of the Agreement to Sell Dated 7 January, 2011,
the documents executed by Keshav Ram Saini in his favour and the details
of the payments made by him to Keshav Ram Saini.
24. The Supreme Court in Pratibha Manchanda and Anr. v. State of
Haryana and Anr. (2023) 8 SCC 181, while setting aside the order of the
High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused, made the following
observations:
“ 29. Land scams in India have been a persistent issue,
involving fraudulent practices and illegal activities related to
land acquisition, ownership, and transactions. Scammers often
create fake land titles, forge sale deeds, or manipulate land
records to show false ownership or an encumbrance-free
status. Organised criminal networks often plan and execute
these intricate scams, exploiting vulnerable individuals and
communities, and resorting to intimidation or threats to force
them to vacate their properties. These land scams not only
result in financial losses for individuals and investors but also
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2023
14:35:54
BAIL APPLN. 3097/2022 Page 8 of 10
disrupt development projects, erode public trust, and hinder
socio-economic progress.”
25. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement , (2019) 9 SCC
24, it has been held by the Supreme Court that in respect of economic
offences anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances.
The relevant observations of the Supreme Court in are set out below:
“83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation
may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the
accused and in collecting the useful information and also the
materials which might have been concealed. Success in such
interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is
protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail,
particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the
effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to
have been collected by the respondent Enforcement
Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we
are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory
bail.”
26. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my considered
view, granting anticipatory bail to the applicant would prejudice the
investigation in the present FIR. The offences against the applicant are
serious in nature and a huge amount of Rs.25 crores has allegedly been
cheated. Custodial investigation of the applicant is required for the purposes
of recovery of the original documents as well as money alleged to be
cheated.
27. Consequently, the interim protection granted to the applicant is
withdrawn forthwith and the present anticipatory bail application is
dismissed along with all pending applications.
28. The amount of Rs. 2 crores deposited by the applicant with this Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2023
14:35:54
BAIL APPLN. 3097/2022 Page 9 of 10
shall be subject to the outcome of the trial.
29. Needless to state, the observations made on the merits of the matter
are purely for the purpose of adjudicating the present application and shall
not be construed as an expression on the merits of the matter.
AMIT BANSAL, J.
OCTOBER 17, 2023
rt
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
KUMAR
Signing Date:17.10.2023
14:35:54
BAIL APPLN. 3097/2022 Page 10 of 10