Shri Kant Tripathi, J.@mdashHeard Mr. H.R. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ram Raj Pandey for the respondent No. 3, learned A.G.A. for the other respondents and perused the record.
2. This is a petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 434 of 2008 under Sections'' 406, 420, 467 and 468, I.P.C. P. S. Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad arising out of Case Crime No. 411 of 2008 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghaziabad.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that according to the averments made in the F.I.R. only a case of civil nature is made out. In fact the respondent No. 3 and petitioner entered into an agreement for sale and thereby the petitioner agreed to sell certain land in favour of the respondent No. 3 and received a sum of Rs. 3 Crore as an earnest money. It is next submitted that a civil suit for specific performance of the agreement is already pending. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on
4. Mr. Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, on the other hand, submitted that as per allegations made in the F.I.R., the intention of the petitioner was dishonest even on the date of transaction. He had shown forged papers to the respondent No. 3 and had concealed the stay order already obtained by M/s. S.V.B. Builders against him. Therefore, the intention of the applicant was dishonest at the very inception of the transaction. If the intention of the aplicant was not dishonest at the very inception of the contract, there was no reason for the applicant to conceal the aforesaid facts. It was also mentioned that it is not a case of simplicitor specific performance of agreement for sale.
5. If the intention of the applicant was not dishonest on the date of the agreement for sale, and his intention became dishonest subsequently, the allegations against him would not constitute any criminal charge and the dispute, in such situation, would be of civil nature. The facts of the present case, prima facie, indicate that the intention of the applicant was dishonest at the beginning of the transaction because he is alleged to have shown forged papers to the respondent No. 3 and had concealed the stay order already obtained by M/s. S.V.B. Builders against him. If the intention was not dishonest, there was no question of concealment of these material facts. Therefore, the applicant has failed to make out any case for exercise of inherent power u/s 482, Cr.P.C.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submitted that in view of the fact that the applicant Shri G. Sagar Suri is an old person aged about 83 years and a civil suit is also pending, the applicant may be granted some interim protection so that he may appear and seek bail.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant it is provided that if applicant Shri G. Sagar Suri appears and applies for bail within one month from today, his bail prayer in Case Crime No. 434 of 2008 under Sections 420, 406, 467 and 468, I.P.C., P. S. Indirapuram District Ghaziabad shall be considered and disposed of by the courts below in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
8. Till the surrender of the applicant before the courts below or expiry of the aforesaid period of one month, whichever is earlier, the applicant shall not be arrested.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed and the interim order, if any, is vacated.
