Being unsuccessful before the Sessions Judge, the appellant moved an application for anticipatory bail before the High Court in the earlier case, which was dismissed by the High Court, as well on 13.08.2007.
Therefore, the criminal process is being abused at the instance of the investigating officer.
1 and 2.
The appellant also sought quashing of the FIR in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.
The companyplainant has already filed a suit for specific performance on 07.5.2007 on the same cause of action.
This was also rejected by the High Court.
Thereafter, on the basis of a companyplaint made by Amarnath Saxena, FIR being No.207/2007 dated 2.08.2007 has been registered against the Karni Singh and others at Police Station Sadar, Jaipur, under Section 448, 456, 457, 420, 467, 468, 471, 380, 120 B IPC.
Since, the appellant was being pressurized to companypromise in the civil litigation he filed an application for anticipatory bail.
Even then Session Judge rejected his application for anticipatory bail on 13.07.2007.
Amar Nath Saxena father of the Appellant the Appellant i.e., Ravindra Saxena Shrimati Sharada Devi and Pradeep Maheshwari and accused numbers 1 to 4 in the FIR.
In fact, the criminal companyplaint has been filed in order to pressurise the appellant for number to pursue the civil litigation pending between the parties.
Therefore, the appellant approached this Court by way of petition for special leave to appeal, which was disposed of on 12.2.2009 with the following order This special leave petition is filed against an order of the High Court dismissing the second bail application of the petitioner under Section 438.
The same flats were subsequently sold to somebody else.
He also filed the companyplaint in the Bar Council of Rajasthan against some Advocates who had been companypelling the appellant.
The appellant again moved application for anticipatory bail which was rejected by the High Court on 24.03.2008.
The companyplainant is a property dealer.
At the time of the hearing of the matter the learned companynsel for the appellant pointed out that the father of the companyplainant is a retired police officer.
The parties are well known to each other.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. Leave granted.
They have companymercial transactions with each other.
It is alleged that the companyplainant agreed to purchase the flats being Flat Nos.101 and 101A from the appellant and his father the necessary companysideration was received by the accused Nos.
