Harsh Vardhan Reddy v. State (NCT Of Delhi)
$~2.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1662/2016 HARSH VARDHAN REDDY ..... Petitioner Through:
Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate.
versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through:
Ms. Anita Abraham, APP along with SI Laxman, PS-Janakpuri, for the State.
Mr. Vikram Singh & Ms. Navita Sharma, Advocates for the complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
O R D E R
% 24.08.2016 Crl.M.A. No. 12634/2016 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 1662/2016 Issue notice. Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the complainant is also present. The status report/ reply has been tendered in Court and taken on record. This application has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in case FIR
No.373/2016 under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station - Janakpuri. The allegation against the petitioner in the FIR is that in the month of September 2015, the petitioner was introduced to the complainant. He claimed to be renowned in the business of dealing in luxury cars. The petitioner offered to sell a Mercedes vehicle bearing registration No. DL1CM-5398 S Class make of the year 2011. The deal was stuck at Rs.32,50,000/-. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.4 Lakhs was paid as earnest money by RTGS on 18.09.2015 into the bank account of the petitioner accused. The accused demanded the balance consideration in cash. The complainant arranged a further amount of Rs.28 Lakhs in cash, which was paid to the accused. The remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- was payable at the time of issuance of NOC. However, the NOC never arrived.
The petitioner had undertaken that the NOC shall be obtained within 15 days of 21.09.2015 and that the same shall be supplied within 30 days at the latest. Since the NOC was not received, the complainant was aggrieved and preferred the complaint in question leading to registration of the aforesaid FIR.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no case of cheating is made out against the petitioner. He submits that the amount payable to the finance company in respect of the said vehicle was only Rs.22 Lakhs. In this respect, he has referred to the e-mail communication dated 16.09.2015 allegedly issued by the finance company through its head/ collections S. Kartik stating that an amount of Rs.22 Lakhs may be transferred for issuance of NOC. Mr. Mishra submits that non-issuance of the NOC by the finance company cannot condemn the petitioner. The petitioner's bail application moved before the Trial Court has
been rejected by the order dated 17.05.2016. A perusal of the said order shows that a sum of Rs.46,76,442/- was the loan amount due against the above said car in the name of the petitioner. The order also discloses that the petitioner is an accused in several other cases, including FIR No.278/2010 registered at Chandigarh; FIR No.218/2013 registered at Karol Bagh; FIR No.271/2013 registered with the Mumbai Crime Branch; FIR No.168/2009 registered at Police Station Barakhamba Road, Delhi. Apart from the said FIRs, 5 criminal complaint cases and 3 execution cases are also pending against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered in Court a list of several cases pending against the petitioner along with supporting documents.
Learned APP submits that the NBWs have already been issued against the petitioner and he has not joined investigation. Looking to the nature of allegations and the gravity of the offence and the fact that the petitioner appears to be involved in several other cases involving sale of high end cars and thereby allegedly cheating the purchasers, I am not inclined to grant any relief in the present petition. Dismissed.
The petitioner is directed to surrender forthwith before the I.O. concerned.
VIPIN SANGHI, J AUGUST 24, 2016 B.S. Rohella