Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 183 (DEL)

Neelam Tiwari v. State Of NCT Delhi

2022-01-21

MUKTA GUPTA

body2022
ORDER The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing. 1. By this petition the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 173/2015, under Sections 406/420/34 IPC, registered at PS C.R. Park. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the FIR in question was registered on 5th May, 2015 and the petitioner was arrested on 10th October, 2016 when she landed at IGI Airport from Kathmandu and 8 days police custody remand was granted whereafter she remained in judicial custody. Charge sheet was filed on 8th December, 2016 in the present case. The petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court on 17th May, 2017 since the petitioner was desirous of settling the matter with all the investors, however the said interim order was vacated on 8th July, 2021 when it was noted that the charge sheet was filed only qua 44 investors with whom the petitioner has settled the matter, however, only 40% of the amount qua other investors have been paid. Thereafter the petitioner surrendered to custody on 17th January, 2022 for the reason she was unwell and in ICU being aged more than 70 years and suffering from various ailments including osteoporosis as also the degenerative changes in intervertebral disc with high disc reduction and acute wedge compression collapse of D11 vertebral body. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a chart showing settlement arriving at between the parties which chart has also been placed by the State along with the status report. 3. The allegations against the petitioner in the above noted FIR lodged on the complaint of one Manish Chauhan and 28 other victims was that they had booked flats in the upcoming project of Pushpa Builders Ltd., namely, Colista Tower being launched by K.W. International Holdings, a proprietary of the company at gram Hasanpur, Bhovapur, now known as Vaishali Ghaziabad, U.P.. The company neither gave possession of the flats nor returned the money. Directions to register FIR were issued under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the investigation of the case was transferred from PS C.R. Park to DIU on 10th September, 2015. 4. The company neither gave possession of the flats nor returned the money. Directions to register FIR were issued under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the investigation of the case was transferred from PS C.R. Park to DIU on 10th September, 2015. 4. As per the charge sheet filed though the land in question was allotted, necessary approvals were granted and 1 Vi tower was built however, 3 towers could not be constructed as the PAC which was the owner of the adjoining area, objected to the construction claiming security issue and filed a petition before the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad wherein stay of further construction was granted. In the meantime, winding up petition for the company was also filed with the result construction could not be completed in the sanctioned period of three years and due to the said complications flats could not be handed over to the investors. 5. As per the investigation Pushpa Builder Ltd. was incorporated on 15th July, 1986 in the name of Poonam Soin wife of V.K. Soin and Vinod Kumar Soin son of Shri Achal Soin, who were its Directors. After resignation of V.K. Soin, who was the brother of the petitioner, the petitioner became the Managing Director of Pushpa Builders Ltd. and her husband Rana Ranjeet Tewari is the proprietor of the firm K.W. International Holdings, which was marketing and developing the said project and had invited the investments on account of sale of the flats in the project Colista Tower. Rana Ranjeet Tewari could not be arrested and thus he was declared a proclaimed offender, however, as noted above when the petitioner landed at IGI Airport on 10th October, 2016 she was arrested. 6. As per the status report now filed by the Investigating Officer though charge sheet has been filed mentioning 44 victims as witnesses, however, during the course of investigation 171 victims came forward, that is, 127 more victims came forward during the course of investigation, though no supplementary charge sheet has been filed till date qua these 127 victims. 7. As per the status report victims mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 to 44 have been fully paid of their investments. Further, out of remaining 127 witnesses, victims mentioned from serial Nos.45 to 100 have also been fully paid back their investments. 7. As per the status report victims mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 to 44 have been fully paid of their investments. Further, out of remaining 127 witnesses, victims mentioned from serial Nos.45 to 100 have also been fully paid back their investments. As many as 17 victims have settled the matter with the petitioner before different forums such as State Consumer Forum and victims mentioned at serial Nos. 118 to 171 have been paid partial amount. According to the chart filed in tabulation form by the petitioner, three of the victims, namely, Babu Raj P.K., Virendra Singh and Manish Kumar Prajapati do not exist. It is further stated that a sum of Rs. 20,000,000/- is also lying deposited with this Court and the balance amount of the investors who have been partially paid is ?24,017,548/- and thus only ?40,17,548/- remains to be paid by the petitioner. 8. A perusal of the charge sheet itself would reveals that it is not the case of the prosecution that there was any cheating, that the land did not belong to the petitioner's company or that the plans were not approved. The building construction could not be carried out after one and a half tower in view of the stay order passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad and other proceeding filed before the DRT. Be that as it may, during this period the petitioner has made her best endeavour to settle the matter and, as noted above, a sum of f 20,000,000/- is lying deposited with the Registrar General of this Court and the balance amount beyond ?20,000,000/-, which is required to be paid to the rest of the investors is now f 40,17,548/-. 9. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for nearly 7 months before she was granted interim bail and during this period the petitioner has come forward to settle the dispute beyond 44 original victims mentioned in the charge sheet and also considering the age of the petitioner who is more than 70 years old and is suffering from various ailments, this Court deems it fit to grant regular bail to the petitioner. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner be released on bail on her furnishing a Personal Bond in the sum of f 50,000/- with two Surety Bonds of the like amount each, out of which one surety would be family member of the petitioner, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/ CMM/ Duty Magistrate, further subject to the condition that the petitioner will not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court concerned, and in case of change of her mobile number and/ or the residential address, the same will be intimated to the Court concerned by way of an affidavit. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has no objection if the sum of f 20,000,000/- lying deposited with this Court along with interest that has accrued thereon is proportionately given to the remaining victims. 11. The victims would be at liberty to make necessary applications in this regard before the learned Trial Court. 12. Petition is disposed of. 13. Pending applications are also disposed of. 14. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.