CRM No. M-19690 of 2011 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-19690 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: 13.07.2011 Satya Bhushan ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN. Present: Mr. D.S. Balli, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Salil Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sagar Deswal, AA.G., Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the complainant. **** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short-'the Cr.P.C.') seeking pre-arrest bail of the petitioner-Satya Bhushan in a case registered vide FIR No.452 dated 11.06.2011 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines Karnal, District Karnal. The allegations against the petitioner is that he entered into an agreement to sell his show-room i.e. SCO No.9, Sector-14, Urban Estate, Karnal, on 31.03.2009 with the complainant-Uttam Singh Jawa against a sale consideration of Rs.2,40,00,000/-. It was clearly mentioned in the agreement that the said show-room was never sold or mortgaged and is free from all sorts of encumbrances. The complainant is alleged to have paid a sum of Rs.1,30,00,000/- in all to the petitioner and was present CRM No. M-19690 of 2011 (O & M) ::2:: before the Sub Registrar on 16th June, 2010 for execution of the sale deed and he got his affidavit attested with regard to his presence, along with the balance sale consideration but the petitioner did not turn-up. There is another story involved in this case of one Harpreet Singh who claims himself to be the prospective vendee of the property in dispute on the basis of an earlier agreement to sell dated 20.02.2009, against which earnest money of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner says that Harpreet Singh was set up by the complainant whereas the complainant says that he is petitioner's person. Be that as it may, the said Harpreet Singh filed a suit for injunction and obtained a stay order which was ultimately vacated by the Court. The petitioner has submitted that in any case the dispute is with regard to the sale of property, for which the remedy lies in Civil Court by the complaint and the criminal proceedings have been initiated only to put pressure for execution of the sale deed or to recover double amount of earnest money. He further submits that whether the complainant was present with the balance sale consideration before the Sub Registrar on 16th June, 2010 or not, is a matter of evidence and for that matter, only a suit for specific performance of agreement is maintainable and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner had the intention of cheating from the very beginning because he made the complainant believe that neither the said property has earlier been sold nor there is any encumbrance on it though both the said statements were found to be incorrect because one Harpreet Singh has set-up an earlier agreement dated 20.02.2009 and as per the certificate of ICICI Bank, Karnal, petitioner had obtained loans of Rs.41,35,616 against loan account No.LBKNL00001223399 and Rs.35,00,000/- against loan account No.LBPNP00001491730 which were CRM No. M-19690 of 2011 (O & M) ::3:: outstanding on the record of the ICICI Bank as on 31.03.2009. The petitioner himself has shown to the Court certificate dated 7.12.2009 by which the said loan was repaid by him, which means that at the time when the agreement was entered into, the property was already mortgaged with the Bank, but it is yet to be seen as to why the petitioner has concealed this fact from the complainant and received from him a huge amount of Rs.1.30,00,000/-. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in Paragraph 3 of the bail application where he has alleged that in between the period starting from 15.11.2009 to the final date of execution of sale deed, the petitioner approached the “said Uttam Chand Jawa" (proposed purchaser) for execution of sale deed of the property in question but was surprised to see that the purchaser namely Uttam Singh Jawa had no source (money) to complete the sale transaction and, therefore, started avoiding the petitioner. In this regard, counsel for the complainant has referrd to the endorsements on the agreement whereby it was agreed between the parties that after 15.11.2009 the complainant would pay another sum of Rs.30,00,000/- up to 15.02.2010 to the petitioner, which was actually paid i.e. Rs.25,00,000/- on 13.02.2010 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 15.02.2010. Moreover, the petitioner has further applied for permission on 24.03.2011 to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Karnal in order to secure loan against the property in dispute, which was from the HDFC Bank. At that time, Estate Officer asked the petitioner to obtain “No Objection Certificate” from Ranjana (daughter of the complainant) as provisional transfer permission had already been given in her favour pursuant to the agreement to sell. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner was trying to cheat the complainant at every step and had already taken CRM No. M-19690 of 2011 (O & M) ::4:: huge money from him (complainant) which is yet to be recovered. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and especially the conduct of the petitioner whereby he has been trying to cheat the complainant from the day one and has obtained a huge amount of Rs.1,30,00,000/- which is yet to be recovered. I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of concession of anticipatory bail, therefore, the application is dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE July 13, 2011 sukhpreet