The Supreme Court has vacated the interim protection order granted to a man accused of selling a BMW car with the help of forged documents.
A Bench led by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana refused to continue the interim protection order granted to the accused on October 16, 2020.
The man was accused of selling a BMW car for Rs 15 lakh by forging documents to the complainant, but neither the car was delivered, nor the amount was returned.
Petitioner’s Counsel Bharat Singh argued before the Court that after Demonetisation in November, 2016, nobody was allowed to pay more than Rs two lakh in cash. In this case the complainant said he (accused) has paid 15 lakh. He was willing to join the investigation.
However, CJI Ramana refused to continue the interim protection order granted to accused on 16/10/2020 and vacated the interim stay order while dismissing his plea.
“By way of order dated 16/10/2020, we have protected and granted interim protection. We are not inclined to continue the interim protection,” noted the bench which also comprised of Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli.
The Top Court in its order had granted interim protection to the accused with a direction to cooperate with the investigation at all stages.
The present plea was filed by one Rohit Behal charged under Sections 406/420/467/468/471 IPC at Police Station Vikaspuri, Delhi. The petitioner has applied for the anticipatory bail for the second time the first one was denied by the trial court. The petitioner sold the said car to the complainant for Rs 15 lakh.
It was submitted that in the SALE agreement, it was stated that the petitioner was the first owner of the car and there was no hypothecation, however, in investigation it has come on the record that the petitioner was not the first owner and the car had also been hypothecated with HDFC Bank.
At the time of signing the sale letter in favour of the complainant, the petitioner handed over RC of the car showing the petitioner as the first owner, which has been found to be forged.
A copy of the RC was also sent to the complainant by the petitioner through a WhatsApp message. Thereafter, on May 30, 2018, the petitioner borrowed the said car from the complainant on friendly terms and never returned the same to the complainant. It was also submitted that other complaints are also pending enquiry against the petitioner.
Before the High Court, the Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that in the previous bail application, it was not brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner had sent the photographs of the car in question to the complainant on his mobile number through WhatsApp. It was further submitted that in 2018, the complainant was desirous of purchasing the said car and getting it financed from a private financer and thus requested the petitioner to sign certain documents and at his request, the petitioner signed the sale letter and other documents however, no date was mentioned therein.
He also submits that cash transactions exceeding Rs. 2 lacs are not permitted in view of Section 269ST of the Income Tax.
In Rebuttal counsel for the State had arguedbefore the High Court that the petitioner has abused the process of law by filing repeated applications for anticipatory bail, inasmuch as three anticipatory bail applications have been dismissed by the Trial Court and the present application is the second anticipatory bail application filed before this Court, the first one being dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated August 26, 2020.
During investigation from the concerned transport authority, it was revealed that the car in Question, a BMW bearing no. DL4C AV 6360 was initially registered in the name of Mata Krishnawanti Memorial Trust. From the documents collected from the transport authority, it was further revealed that sale letter and other documents in favour of the petitioner bears the signature of the 1st owner dated 02.01.2018 whereas the car was already sold by the petitioner to the complainant on 06.11.2017. At the time of signing the sale letter in favour of the complainant, the petitioner handed over RC of the car showing the petitioner as the first owner, which has been found to be forged. Neither the car has been returned to the complainant nor the consideration amount of Rs 15 lakh has been returned by the petitioner to the complainant.