Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 932 (RAJ)

Chandra Prakash Arora v. State Of Rajasthan

2021-05-27

PRAKASH GUPTA

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. These bail applications has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 CrPC seeking regular bail in FIR Nos. 342/2020 and 345/2020 respectively registered at Police Station, Neemrana, Distt. Bhiwadi (Alwar) for the offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. He further submits that the petitioner is a Director of M/s. RIICO Developers Private Limited and another Director in the said firm is his wife Smt. Nidhi Arora. A Development Agreement was executed between Hari Narayan, being the land owner and the petitioner as also his wife being the Developers on 18.7.2013 for development of the property as a commercial property in the name of "Anandam Homes". There was an arbitration clause in the said agreement. Since dispute arose between the petitioner and khatedars, the petitioner filed a civil suit alongwith the application for temporary injunction, which was allowed vide order dated 1.11.2018 and interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner. The defendants / khatedars filed a Civil Misc. Appeal, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 1.8.2019 and the order dated 1.11.2018 passed by the trial court was confirmed. Subsequently, Hari Narayan had passed away on 17.3.2018 and his grand son Mr. Mohit Yadav filed a civil suit. The learned Trial Court dismissed the said Civil Suit. Aggrieved thereby, Mohit Yadav approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 622/2019 titled as 'Mohit Yadav and Anr. Versus RIICO Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors, wherein this Court vide order dated 2.7.2019 granted interim order in favour of the land owner staying alienation of the property in question. Thereafter in the year 2020, the present FIRs have been lodged. He further submits that the petitioner has not cheated anybody. Rather he has invested huge amount in the project. Skeleton of some of the flats is ready and 60% work of the petitioner's share has been completed on the spot. But because of the interim order, the petitioner could not complete the project. The present dispute between the parties is civil in nature and in order to convert the same into criminal, the present FIRs have been lodged with a malafide intention. The alleged offence is triable by a Judicial Magistrate, First Class. But because of the interim order, the petitioner could not complete the project. The present dispute between the parties is civil in nature and in order to convert the same into criminal, the present FIRs have been lodged with a malafide intention. The alleged offence is triable by a Judicial Magistrate, First Class. He further submits that even otherwise for redressal of the complainant's grievance, remedy lies before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (for short, 'RERA') and complete mechanism has been provided thereunder. Hence, in view of Section 80 of the RERA Act, no FIR can be lodged in the instant matter and only a complaint can be filed in writing before the competent authority only. 3. He further submits that vide order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 11228/2020 and 11218/2020, the petitioner has been granted bail. Similarly, vide order dated 25.1.2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 149/2021, the petitioner has been granted bail. Vide order dated 25.1.2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 151/2021, the petitioner has been granted bail. Vide order dated 29.1.2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 809/2021, the petitioner has been granted bail. Vide order dated 29.1.2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 537/2021, the petitioner has been granted bail. Vide order dated 3.3.2021 passed in S.B. Cr.Misc. Bail Application No. 3176/2021, the petitioner has been granted bail. Vide order dated 18.3.3021 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 4014/2021, the petitioner has been granted bail. Vide order dated 30.4.2021 passed by this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 5816/2021 and 5817/2021, the petitioner has been granted bail. Likewise, vide order dated 23.4.2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 5900/2021, the petitioner has been granted bail. 4. The petitioner is a heart patient. He was admitted in SMS Hospital on 23.3.201, where his angioplasty was done and stents have been implanted. The petitioner is in judicial custody since long and the conclusion of trial will take long time, hence he may be enlarged on bail. 5. Bail Application No. 5900/2021, the petitioner has been granted bail. 4. The petitioner is a heart patient. He was admitted in SMS Hospital on 23.3.201, where his angioplasty was done and stents have been implanted. The petitioner is in judicial custody since long and the conclusion of trial will take long time, hence he may be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned PP appearing for the State assisted by counsel for the complainant have opposed the same. They submit that the petitioner concealed the material facts from this Court. They submit that the suit filed by the petitioner had already been dismissed by the trial court vide judgment dated 28.1.2021, but at the time of arguing the bail application Nos. 5816/2021 and 5817/2021 before this Court on 30.4.2021, the petitioner concealed this fact. This fact is well established from the fact that in the said suit, the counsel for the petitioner was Mr. Gunjan Pathak, who argued the bail applications bearing S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 809/2021 and 537/2021 decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.1.2021. In view of this, aforesaid fact was well within the knowledge of the petitioner. It is also submitted that no appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 28.1.2021. 6. They further submit that the petitioner who is in collusion with his wife, has committed cheating with the buyers. Number of cases have been registered against them. After granting bail to the petitioner, petitioner's wife is absconding. The petitioner siphoned the money in his wife's account and the balance in his account is zero. They further submit that against the order dated 27.11.2020 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 11228/2020, the complainant has filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in which notices have been issued and the matter is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. They further submit that in view of the provisions contained in Order 29 Rule 3 CPC, Secretary or any other Director of the Company could have been appeared before the Trial Court for giving evidence. They further submit that out of 1680 flats, 800 flats have been booked and the amount has been received by the petitioner, but skeleton of the flats, as alleged by the counsel for the petitioner, have not been constructed. They further submit that out of 1680 flats, 800 flats have been booked and the amount has been received by the petitioner, but skeleton of the flats, as alleged by the counsel for the petitioner, have not been constructed. Neither the project has been completed within the stipulated period nor the amount has been refunded to the complainants. In the event the petitioner is granted bail, there is likelihood that he would leave the country. 8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same arguments were raised with regard to issuing notices by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP by the counsel for the complainant before this Court at the time of arguing the earlier bail applications and after considering the same, this Court allowed the bail applications. 9. So far as arguments of the counsel for the complainant with regard to concealment of the material facts is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that more than two dozens FIRs were lodged against the petitioner. On 9.6.2020, the petitioner was arrested and therefore, he could not appear before the trial court in the civil suit pending before it. Resultantly vide judgment dated 28.1.2021, petitioner's civil suit was dismissed on account of non production of any evidence. The factum of dismissal of the suit by the trial court vide its judgment dated 28.1.2021 was not within the knowledge of the petitioner as he was in custody since 9.6.2020. 10. He further submits that even while arguing the earlier bail applications before this Court, learned counsel for the complainant did not make any submission that the civil suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment dated 28.1.2021. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no objection in depositing his passport with the trial court. 12. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly in view of the fact that in number of cases, the petitioner has been granted bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court as well as by this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 13. 13. Therefore, these bail applications are allowed and accused petitioner Chandra Prakash Arora @ Ravi Arora S/o late Shri Khan Chand is ordered to be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 14. The petitioner shall surrender his passport with the trial court. 15. Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in connected file.