CRM No.M-31879 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-31879 of 2010 Date of decision : 18.1.2011 Mrs.Vijay Luxmi .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent Present:- Mr.Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab S.S.SARON, J The petitioner has prayed for the grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered against her on 7.1.2010 under Sections 420 and 120B IPC; besides, Sections 380 and 427 IPC added later on. The FIR in the case has been registered on an application submitted by Usha Rani widow of Lt.Suresh Kapoor. It is alleged by the complainant that she is owner of property bearing No.318/2, Arna Barna Chowk, Patiala to the extent of one-half share. The other one- half share is owned by her son Pankaj Kapoor. This land was purchased through registered sale deed. The complainant had given one shop to her son Amit Kapoor out of her share. On 13.9.2009, she received a telephone call from her elder son Pankaj Kapoor from Mata Vaishno Devi where he had gone that some gunda persons were trying to encroach upon their property and take possession of their property at Arna-Barna Chowk, Patiala. In this regard he(Pankaj Kapoor) had already informed at Police CRM No.M-31879 of 2010 -2- Station Kotwali, Patiala and SSP Patiala through telephone and telegram. Then with some respectable persons, the complainant reached at the spot where she saw some unidentified persons taking away one big generator set, one inverter, two batteries, eight girders, one big table, one big counter, twelve chairs, eight benches, three fans, some property documents and blank pro-notes of her son. These articles were being taken away by loading them in a truck. The said persons were armed with weapons. When she tried to stop them, they started pushing her and threatened that if she approached the police, they would kill her and her family. She could identify the persons if produced before her. She requested for taking legal action in order to unearth the big conspiracy and save her and her family's life and liberty. The complaint of Usha Rani was marked to DSP City-I, Patiala for investigation, besides, an application dated 10.10.2009 from Vijay Lakshmi (petitioner) was enquired into by the SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Patiala. According to the investigation of the SHO, Police Station Kotwali, it was found that Pankaj Kapoor and his mother Usha Rani had not got the entry with respect to the property recorded in their favour as per the order of the Court in the records of the Municipal Corporation and nor was it got recorded in the Revenue Records. Had the entry of the property been recorded, then it was not possible to sell it. Sukhwinder Singh son of Harnam Singh had got sale deed registered in favour of Surjit Singh son of Balwant Singh, Jasmail Singh son of Jagroop Singh and Gurnam Singh son of Mehar Singh. All the said persons were cheating by fraud given power of attorney in favour of Rajnish Kumar and Naveen Bansal son of Inderjeet CRM No.M-31879 of 2010 -3- Bansal for an amount of Rs.20 lakhs which had been grabbed by these persons. It was recommended by the SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Patiala that after getting legal opinion from District Attorney (Legal), some appropriate orders for registration of a case against aforesaid Sukhwinder Singh son of Harnam Singh, Surjit Singh son of Balwant Singh, Jasmail Singh son of Jagroop Singh and Gurnam Singh son of Mehar Singh be given. The SSP, Patiala sought legal opinion of District Attorney (Legal) who vide report dated 31.12.2009 stated that he had verified the application of Usha Rani (complainant), the report of DSP (City I) dated 9.12.2009, the judgment dated 19.12.2005 of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala in case Pankaj Kapoor and others v. Harbakshish Singh, copy of application of Pankaj Kapoor dated 27.2.2003 and sale deed from Didar Singh, copy of order dated 17.9.2009 of Civil Judge, Patiala in case titled Pankaj Kapoor v. Gurnam Singh etc., application of Vijay Lakshmi (petitioner) dated 22.9.2009, copy of sale deed dated 19.7.2005, copy of power of attorney dated 4.9.2009 and other documents. It was observed by the District Attorney (Legal) that Usha Rani (complainant) had alleged in her application that some unidentified persons tried to take possession of her property illegally and forcibly, besides, they had stolen her valuable articles. According to the report of DSP (City -I), Patiala, Sukhwinder Singh, Surjit Singh, Jasmail Singh and Gurnam Singh with fraud and cheating grabbed Rs.20 lakhs and given power of attorney to Rajnish Kumar and Naveen Bansal. It was also stated in the report that on 13.9.2009 Rajnish Kumar and Naveen Bansal on the basis of power of CRM No.M-31879 of 2010 -4- attorney had got the site plan for new construction of house and shop passed from the Municipal Corporation. They hired JCB on rent to remove the old construction and lift the debris. In this Rajnish Kumar and Naveen Bansal were not at fault. In terms of the order dated 15.12.2005 of the Civil Court in favour of Pankaj Kapoor and Usha Rani (complainant) and in the light of orders of the Court and report of DSP (City -I), Patiala dated 9.12.2009, an offence under Sections 420 and 120 IPC against Sukhwinder Singh, Surjit Singh, Jasmail Singh and Gurnam Singh were prima facie made out. As per the report of DSP (City -I), Patiala necessary orders it was suggested may be given to SHO, Police Station Kotwali. In the application dated 13.9.2009 Usha Rani had made allegations regarding theft of valuable articles during the day light. The DSP (City I), Patiala had reported that on 13.9.2009 Rajnish Kumar and Naveen Bansal had demolished the shops and lifted the debris. However, Rajnish Kumar and Naveen Bansal were innocent. The occurrence is of 13.9.2009 and the main allegations of theft were required to be verified during the course of investigation. The report of District Attorney (Legal) was approved by the SSP, Patiala and FIR was registered. The petitioner is the purchaser of the property from Gurnam Singh. According to the petitioner, Suresh Kapoor had executed a registered Will dated 17.12.1997 in favour of Didar Singh. Suresh Kapoor died on 20.4.1998 and the property was inherited by said Didar Singh on the basis of the Will dated 17.12.1997. Didar Singh sold the property in favour of Harbakshish Singh, on 19.2.2004 for Rs.7.25 lakhs. Harbakshish CRM No.M-31879 of 2010 -5- Singh sold the property to one Sukhwinder Singh vide sale deed dated 6.5.2004. Sukhwinder Singh sold the said property vide sale deed dated 19.7.2005 (Annexure P-3) to Surjit Singh, Jasmail Singh and Gurnam Singh. The petitioner alongwith her son entered into an agreement with the said Surjit Singh. Jasmail Singh and Gurnam Singh to purchase the said property vide agreement dated 4.9.2009 (Annexure P-4). Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the property. The case relates to dispute between Usha Rani on the basis of natural succession and Didar Singh on the basis of Will dated 17.12.1997. According to the petitioner, there was litigation between Usha Rani and her husband Suresh Kapoor which culminated in decree of divorce in 1995. The question regarding liability of the petitioner is to be considered and enquired into by the Investigating authorities according to law. So far there is nothing to show the involvement of the petitioner who is a lady. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Sukhwinder Singh, Police Station Kotwali, Patiala, has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and her custody is not required for the purpose of investigation. In the circumstances, the interim bail granted on 29.10.2010 is made absolute. Criminal Miscellaneous stands disposed of. (S.S.SARON) 18.1.2011 JUDGE akm/amit