Allowed

Ramsingh @ Vijay @ Titu Wadhwa v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Mar 2023MCRCA/1490/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant charged with cheating under Section 420 IPC due to alleged discrepancies in a land sale agreement, considering the admitted typographical error.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; release on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with conditions regarding inducement, trial prejudice, interrogation availability, and future offenses.

Ramsingh @ Vijay @ Titu Wadhwa Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.Cr.C.(A) No. 1490 of 2022

¶5

Ramsingh @ Vijay @ Titu Wadhwa S/o Mota Singh Wadhwa, aged about 50 years, Occupation – Director of Ranisagar Dhaba and Transporter, R/o Bazar Para, Kawardha, Police Station and Tahsil – Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.)

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

•	State of Chhattisgarh, Kabirdham (Kawardha),	Through – Station House Officer, Police Station District Kabirdham (C.G.) ---- State/Non-applicant
For	Applicant	: Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate
For	Non-Applicant/State	: Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Govt. Advocate
For	Objector/Complainant	: Mr. Sanjeev Banjare, Advocate

¶9

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶10

03.03.2023

¶11

The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 759/2022 registered at Police Station Kabirdham (Kawardha), District Kabirdham (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

¶12

As per prosecution story, the present applicant is the owner of Survey No. 195/1 admeasuring area 0.0475 acre of land situated at Village Sonpuri, Kawardha. The present applicant entered into an agreement to sale the above stated plot with the complainant on 15.03.2022 for consideration of Rs.27 lacs. The complainant advanced total Rs.18 lacs to the applicant. On 15.10.2022 the complainant went alongwith Patwari for physical verification of the plot, where he found that correct survey number of plot is 195/1, whereas in the agreement to sale the survey number is mentioned as. 175/1. Further it is also verified that the total area of land, which is recorded in the name of the applicant, is 0.0475 acre, whereas the agreement has been

¶13

¶14

entered for 8 decimal of the land. On such complaint, the police registered an F.I.R. on 15.10.2022 itself for offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC against the present applicant.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is not in dispute that the present applicant is owner of the plot, though physically he is in possession of 8 decimal of land, but in revenue record 0.0475 acre land is recorded in his name. He would further submit that the boundary in the agreement to sale is correct and same is not disputed by learned counsel for the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant also admits that out of Rs.27 lacs, he has received Rs.18 lacs as advance amount. He would further submit that the applicant has not committed any cheating and there was some typographical mistake in agreement to sale. He would pray for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant.

¶16

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

Learned counsel for the complainant would submit that there is change in the survey number and the plot area. He would further submit that the applicant has grabbed Rs.18 lacs out of Rs.27 lacs by mentioning incorrect survey number and area, in the agreement to sale, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the case diary.

¶19

From the case diary, it appears that the present applicant is the owner of Survey No. 195/1 admeasuring area 0.0475 acre of land situated at Village Sonpuri, Kawardha; an agreement to sale was entered into between the applicant and the complainant on 15.03.2022 for consideration of Rs.27 lacs; and out of Rs.27 lacs till date Rs.18 lacs has been given to the applicant by the complainant. In physical verification, the complainant found that the correct Survey No. is 195/1, whereas in the agreement to sale, it is

¶20

¶21

mentioned as 175/1 and the area of the plot is also different; the applicant has not denied the execution of agreement to sale and he has also not denied that he has received Rs.18 lacs from the complainant; the applicant has fairly submitted that there is some typographical mistake in the agreement to sale and in place of 175/1 it should be 195/1. The applicant has further stated that at present, he is in possession of about 8 decimal of land, though in his name 0.0475 acre of land is recorded in the revenue record. Considering the facts narrated by learned counsel for the applicant and further considering the fact that the applicant was granted ad-interim bail by this Court vide order dated 31.10.2022, I am inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶22

Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant in connection with crime in question, he shall be released on anticipatory bail by the officer arresting him on his executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. Applicant shall also abide by following conditions:-

¶23

i. he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such fact to the Court or Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

¶24

ii. he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and

¶25

iii. he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶26

iv. he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.

¶27

The observation made in the course of this order are only for considering the case of applicant on the application for grant of anticipatory bail. The concerned trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by the observation made in the course of this order.

¶28

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶29

vatti

Ramsingh @ Vijay @ Titu Wadhwa v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsingh @ Vijay @ Titu Wadhwa v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajeshwar Dubey @ Tunnu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suraj Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Thodarmull Balchand Suntwal Vs South East Central Railways

Mahendra Kumar Sinha Vs Mahesh Kumar Sinha

Chhotelal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mayashankar Yadav Vs Smt. Neelam Yadav