Naresh Malhotra v. The State ( NCT of Delhi)

ORDER %

16.09.2015 Crl. M.A. No.13575/2015 (Exemption) in BAIL APPLN. 1953/2015 Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application disposed of. BAIL APPLN. 1953/2015 & BAIL APPLN. 1955/2015 The petitioners before this Court are Naresh Malhotra and Anu Malhotra.They are husbandand wife. FIR has been registeredon the complaintof Sonia Gulati.This FIR has been registeredunder Section 420/406/506/34of the IPG. The versionof the complainantis that she had purchased a property i.e. property bearing No. L-2/45, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar measuring100 square yards from one Rajender Prasad. Documents to the said effect which included a power of attorney,agreementto sell andreceipthave been executedby Rajender Prasad. Furthersubmissionis that these documentswere witnessesby petitioner No. 1 Naresh Malhotra. The contents of the FIR disclose that NareshMalhotrahad beenhandedoverthesepapersalongwithhis son Mayank at the time when the alleged raid had been conducted in the house of the complainantas the complainantwas purportedlymaking infringing material. At that time, the complainant who was a widow was scared and she had handed over her property papers to Naresh Malhotra. She had done this on the trust relationship with Naresh Malhotra. Further allegation is that thereafter sometime in April, 2013, the said property has been transferred in the name of Anu Malhotra, the wife of petitioner No. 1. This has been done clandestinely. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is largely a civil dispute for which two civil suits are pending inter-sethe parties. The complainantis a habitualoffenderandevenin the year2011,a raid had been conducted in her premises for which she had been taken into custody.The conductofthe complainantisun-becoming. Noting the above factum as also the documents which have been brought on record which admittedlyincludes the agreementto sell, power of attorney and receipt which show that RajenderPrasad had enteredthe propertytransactionand had sold this propertyin favourof the complainant for Rs.7,25,000/- in the year 2012 and which documents stand witnessed by petitioner No. 1 (Naresh Malhotra), the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, are difficultto digest.The statementof RajenderPrasadhas also been recorded to the said effect. The original papers, as per the complainant,hadbeenhandedoverto petitionerNo. 1NareshMalhotra and his son as she was scared that a raid had been conducted in her house. It was thus on this faith relationship that these documentshad been handed over to him and thereafter with a deceitful intention that the propertystood transferredin the name of the wife Anu Malhotra who is the directbeneficiaryof this transaction.The submissionof the learned counsel for the State that the custodial interrogation of the petitionersis eminentstandsfortified. No groundis madeout for anticipatory^rotection<T3ismissed. INDERMEET KAUR, J SEPTEMBER 16,2015 A

J $-26 & 27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1953/2015 NARESH MALHOTRA Petitioner Through Mr. SunilK. Mittal,Mr. NareshC. Sharma and Mr. Kshitiz Mittal, Advs. versus THE STATE ( NOT OF DELHI) Respondent Through Ms.Neelam Sharma,APP for the State along with SI Govind Singh. Mr.Nikhilesh Kumar, Adv. for the complainant. + BAIL APPLN. 1955/2015 ANU MALHOTRA Petitioner Through Mr. SunilK. Mittal,Mr. NareshC. Sharma and Mr. Kshitiz Mittal, Advs. versus THE STATE (NOT OF DELHI) Respondent Through Ms. NeelamSharma,APP forthe State alongwith SI GovindSingh. Mr.Nikhilesh Kumar, Adv. for the complainant. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR