Yagya Dutt Sharma vs. The State of NCT of Delhi and connected matters
Background
The complainant alleged she had taken a loan of ₹25 lakh from the accused/applicant and his co-accused after mortgaging her flat, but that the transaction was later shown as a registered sale deed rather than a mortgage; she claimed the accused violated an understanding to return the flat once the loan was repaid and instead sold it to third parties. A civil suit for specific performance over the same property is already pending, and the applicant sought anticipatory bail in the resulting FIR for cheating and forgery.
Decision Breakdown
The Court found it implausible that the complainant would not have retained the original memoranda of understanding if she genuinely wished to reclaim the flat, and noted the transfer had occurred by a registered sale deed, which cannot simply be undone by an unregistered document. Concluding that the dispute was, at its core, a civil property disagreement already before a civil court, the Judge held custodial interrogation unnecessary and granted anticipatory bail, with a caveat that the trial court would independently weigh the evidence.
Lesson Learnt
Courts are cautious about allowing a genuine civil property dispute, especially one already pending before a civil court, to be given a criminal colour, and anticipatory bail is more readily granted where the alleged wrongdoing is essentially a contractual/documentary dispute rather than one demanding custodial investigation.