Jaya Roy - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel or the Opposite party No.2.
(2.) PETITIONER is an accused in a case registered under Sections 406/420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant has filed a complaint petition against the petitioner and other co-accused Suresh Agarwal (father of Saurav Agarwal) stating therein that as the complainant was having landed property measuring 7920 Sq. ft. at Mouza Dindli P.S. Adityapur, District Seraikella Kharsawan, on being approached by the petitioner Saurav Agarwal and co-accused Suresh Agarwal to give the said land to them, they and the complainant entered into an agreement to certain terms and conditions reduced in writing in the shape of development agreement dated 4.2.2004 at Jamshedpur. The aforesaid accused persons paid a sum of Rs. 2,00000/- to the complainant as part performance of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement at the time of handing over of the land. According to the specific terms and conditions of the agreement, the aforesaid persons undertook to hand over total eight numbers of newly constructed flats and seven numbers of shop rooms, two car parking space and six scooter parking space in the ground floor and the remaining flats and shops shall remain in possession of the accused. After completion of the construction, inspite of repeated request/ demands made by the complainant, not even a single flat or shop room constructed over the land of the complainant, has ever been handed over to him according to the specific terms and conditions of the agreement. Ultimately, the aforesaid accused persons flatly denied to give any flat or shop room (2) to the complainant. It is further alleged that during course of development in the name of providing water and electricity connection and in order to avoid personal appearance before any authority, they have also obtained some signatures of the complainant on blank stamp papers and the accused petitioners have converted the same into a valuable document and hereby the accused persons have cheated the complainant. The complainant having no alternative has filed the present case. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant after executing development agreement, sold away the entire land to the petitioner by registered Sale deed and now he has got no right, title or interest over the same. It is also contended that according to the allegation in the complaint petition, no case under Section 406 and 420 of I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner annexed the copy of the Development Agreement as Annexure-2 in this application.
(3.) MR. Sinha has further contended that later on due to urgent need of money, the complainant decided to cancel the development agreement and sell the entire land to the petitioner for a total consideration amount of Rs.7,40,040/- and a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid in cash to the complainant on 27.08.2005, the receipt of the same has been acknowledged by the complainant and he has also issued a money receipt in token of receipt of the said amount which is annexed in this application as Annexure-3. It is also submitted that the complainant has filed the instant case after five years of selling the land only to get extra money from the petitioner and also to harass him. Mr. Sinha has further contended that the complainant has also sold other pieces of land to the petitioners which are adjacent to the land in question for a consideration amount more or less equivalent to the consideration amount of the land in question. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed any offence alleged by the complainant and he is entitled to get anticipatory bail in this case.;