SUPREME COURT ASKED PETITIONER: IN WHAT TIME HE CAN VACANT THE FLAT FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL?
New Delhi: In the hearing of ABA matter the Hon'ble SC Judges Shri Ajay Rastogi and Shri Abhay Oka asked the petitioner Vinod R Chavan that it is not fair to grab the flat and ask for anticipatery bail. The court directed the petitioner to file affidavit that in what time period the petitioner can vacate the flat to get ABA allowed.
In past the informant and petitioner was friend. The petitioner helped informant in Slum Rehabilation flat with verbal committment of 20% commission .The petitioner help informant for occupation in Rs 1 cr approx flat at Antop Hill Mumbai.
Later informant gave his Rs10 lac value flat (Market rent Rs 2000 approx)for stay till his wish in June 2017. After few months informant directed petitioner to vacate the flat without paying any charges . When petitioner denied to vacate flat then informant took the help of goons .Later FIR filed against informant. In return the informant submitted a zerox copy of MOU to Mumbra Police and said that petitioner has forged informant signature. The Mumbra police registered FIR against petitioner in March 2018. The Thane court rejected the ABA and later High court gave interim prottection till Aug 2021. On 6 Aug 21 Bombay High Court rejected the ABA as petitioner was not ready to vacate the flat . Later SLP was filed to get bail on merit of case as CRPC 41A(1) notice is served and petitioner is cooperating in investigation .The petitioner took ground that till date no handwritting expert report came and document is submitted by informant not petitioner. The chargesheet also not filed Since March 2018.
During the hearing court said that if some body will capture your flat then what u will do? Petitioner informed the court that civil suit is pending before Thane court for eviction and he will obey court order.Then also bench asked that in What time limit he can vacate the flat?
In Past the Supreme court passed settled law that no civil dispute should be converted into criminal and HC should quash such FIRs
The fact about the property is that informant failed to provide the Municipal NOC in civil case since last 2 years. As per RTI reply of 2019 , In Diva region there are 63000 unauthorized structure .Inspite of 2 flats the informant claimed SRA flat which are for poors by giving false affidavit. The Petitioner also worried of charges ( Article 21). The petitioner said that he will vacate flat in 6 months if ABA is allowed and FIR is quashed. All the points has been submitted by petitioner in the affidavit to SC for 4th Oct hearing
If court allow ABA in return to vacant the flat then it will be landmark judgement . Then in future all the property disputes will be resolved like this and for freedom every person will compromise his claim. The police station will be full for property dispute FIR under IPC 467,420,etc and SHO will recover huge kick back for every FIR. It will be prompt solution of owners because civil court take long time to settle disputes. The HC and SC will help to vacate the flat or pay money as per contract in the return of Bail.
In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC
India Ltd. & Others (2006) 6 SCC 736.. The Supreme Court opined that:"While
on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business
circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously
on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming
and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a
tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable
break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person
could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of
imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do
not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal
prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."
Criminal courts should
ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurize
parties to settle civil disputes. In cases of breach of contract, the remedy is
to approach a civil court. In the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta &
Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)( Anand Kumar Mohatta and
Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), SLP (CRL.) No.
3730 of 2016).the Court held that the essence of the offence lay in the use of
the property entrusted to a person by that person, in violation of any
direction of law or any legal contract which he had made regarding the
discharge of such trust.
Unscrupulous litigants often indulge in forum
shopping to get favourable decisions. Therefore, cases which are predominantly
of a civil nature are given the guise of a criminal offence, that too after
availing civil remedies. Presence of mala fide intention to
recover the amounts which a party is unable to recover by civil mode is an
abuse of the process of law (Ramesh Dahyalal
Shah v. The State of
Maharashtra, Joint Commissioner of Police & Ors., Criminal Application
No. 613 of 2016.). Therefore, the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR 604.held that, where a criminal
proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where
the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to a private and
personal grudge, such proceeding needs to be quashed and set aside.