Criminal Misc.-M No. 23609 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 23609 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.9.2011 Arun Goyal .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. R.D. Anand, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The allegation against the petitioner in the FIR got registered on the complaint of mother of the petitioner is that he had forged power of attorney on her behalf and on the basis thereof got sale deed of the plot, owned by the mother, registered in favour of his wife. The accused in the case are petitioner, his wife and witnesses to the power of attorney. Pre-arrest bail application of the wife of the petitioner bearing Criminal Misc.-M No. 23030 of 2011 was filed firstly. Considering the fact that it was a dispute between the family members, notice of motion was issued. The complainant, namely, mother of the petitioner was directed to be impleaded as respondent No. 2 and also taking note of the fact that wife of the petitioner was stated to be pregnant, interim bail was granted. Subsequent thereto, pre-arrest bail application was filed by the petitioner bearing Criminal Misc.-M No. 23609 of 2011. Considering that notice of motion had been issued in the pre-arrest bail application filed by his wife and the dispute was between the family members, notice was also issued in this bail application and interim stay of arrest was granted. Criminal Misc.-M No. 23609 of 2011 [2] On 9.9.2011, arguments in the aforesaid two cases were heard at length. After noticing the stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, following order was passed: “During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners stated before the court that the petitioners are ready and willing to suffer a statement in the civil suit filed by the complainant challenging the sale deed executed by Arun Goyal in favour of his wife-Ritu Goyal, as power of attorney holder of the complainant- Santosh Devi, mother of Arun Goyal and get the sale deed cancelled. The possession of the plot is admittedly with the complainant. Petitioner-Arun Goyal is also undertaking that all the expenses borne by the complainant shall be reimbursed by him. Learned counsel for the complainant on instructions from the complainant, who is present in court, submitted that the offer made by the petitioners is acceptable.” Today, the case was passed over at the first call. In the after- noon session, Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate, who had filed both the petitions, mentioned the cases and stated that he may be permitted to withdraw his power of attorney as the petitioner had taken the brief from him yesterday stating that he never instructed the counsel to make statement of the kind noticed in the order. Petitioner-Arun Goyal is present in person in court. He was also heard in person. The allegation against the petitioner in the FIR is that he had forged a power of attorney on behalf of his mother-Santosh Devi, who is complainant in the FIR. The mother is resident of Chandigarh. The power of attorney was executed at Chhachhrauli (Yamuna Nagar) on 13.8.2010. The stamp papers were purchased on 26.7.2010. In the power of attorney, there are two witnesses, namely, Jai Lal, Advocate, District Courts, Panchkula and Ashwani Pathak, H. No. 573, Sector 2, Panchkula. It has been thumb marked and signed by the complainant, namely, mother of the petitioner. Before registration of the sale deed pertaining to the plot in question, the petitioner submitted an application to Sub Registrar, Kharar Criminal Misc.-M No. 23609 of 2011 [3] where the plot is located, for conducting verification of the general power of attorney executed by the mother of the petitioner in his favour on 13.8.2010. The application was filed on 17.8.2010. It was forwarded in original by Sub Registrar, Kharar to Sub Registrar, Chachhrauli for verification on the same date. As is evident from Annexure-P3, placed on record, a report was also appended thereon by Sub Registrar, Chhachhrauli on 17.8.2010, i.e., same day certifying that the power of attorney is entered at Wasika No.344/4 dated 13.8.2010. Immediately thereafter, the sale deed of the plot in question was got registered by the petitioner in favour of his wife on 25.8.2010. Mutation was also entered on 4.9.2010. Having come to know about the fraud committed by the petitioner, the FIR was got registered on 29.6.2011. On the last date of hearing when the case was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, it was submitted that on account of some dispute between the family members, a compromise had been effected on 1.9.2010. In terms thereof, the parties settled that they will not take any action against each other pertaining to any incident/activity, legal or illegal done by the parties on or before 1.9.2010. Though number of details have been mentioned in the aforesaid compromise, but there is no reference to the power of attorney dated 13.8.2010 allegedly executed by Santosh Devi, who was one of the signatories to the aforesaid compromise. The petitioner had earlier filed a suit pertaining to the property in question, which was withdrawn in terms of the settlement arrived at. Even if for arguments’ sake, it is assumed that the power of attorney had been executed by the mother in his favour and the property in question was sold by him in pursuance thereof, may be in favour of his wife, sale consideration of ` 34,50,000/- received by him was not paid to the mother, i.e., owner of the property. At the time of presentation of power of attorney or the documents for registration, there is a provision for taking photographs of the person appearing before the Sub Registrar. The documents registered prior to and subsequent to the document in question, namely, power of Criminal Misc.-M No. 23609 of 2011 [4] attorney bearing Wasika Nos. 343/4 and 345/4 (the number of present registered power of attorney being 344/4) contain photographs of the executants clicked in the office of the Sub-Registrar and the beneficiaries, whereas on the power of attorney in question, the executant was not photographed in the office. Only her photograph has been affixed on the power of attorney. It was sought to be explained by stating that the executant was not well. In terms of the rule applicable, requisite fee was deposited with the Sub Registrar for going to the residence of the executant and register the document. However, the stand of the complainant is that she never went to Chhachhrauli. In fact, there is no person knowing her living in Chhachhrauli. It is further stated by her in the complaint, on the basis of which the FIR was registered, that at the time of execution of alleged power of attorney by the complainant on 13.8.2010, in fact, her husband was in jail in FIR No. 256 dated 10.8.2010 got registered by the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station, Sector 34, Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the complainant stated that he remained in custody from 10.8.2010 to 19.8.2010. The power of attorney in the present case was executed by the petitioner on 13.8.2010, while Santosh Devi is stated to be at Chhachhrauli, whereas her matrimonial home is at Chandigarh and especially when her husband was in jail on a complaint made by the son, in whose favour the power of attorney is sought to be executed. Two witnesses on the power of attorney, who were also from Panchkula, namely, Jai Lal, Advocate and Ashwani Pathak were taken into custody and have been released on regular bail. It is a case in which property in dispute is situated at Desumajra (Kharar); the petitioner as well as the complainant-Santosh Devi are residents of Chandigarh but the power of attorney was executed at Chhachhrauli (Yamuna Nagar). Enquiry was conducted from Sub Registrar, Chhachhrauli. As is evident from letter dated 24.8.2011, Sub Registrar, Chhachhrauli replied to S.H.O., Police Station, Chhachhrauli in response to his letter of even date that along with the power of attorney sought to be registered, an Criminal Misc.-M No. 23609 of 2011 [5] application from Santosh Devi was received mentioning that she had come to stay with some of her relatives and because of sudden ill-health she was not able to walk. She has a plot in village Desumajra, Tehsil Kharar for which she wants to execute a power of attorney in favour of her son, namely, petitioner-Arun Goyal. The application was accepted and as per Indian Registration Manual, 1908, visiting fee was got deposited. The most disturbing thing in the letter of the Sub-Registrar is that it does not contain the name of the officer, who had signed the same. It merely mentions Sub Registrar, Chhachhrauli. This court in R.F.A. Nos. 734 of 2011-- State of Haryana v. Gurdev Singh and others and connected matters noticing the attitude of the officers where they sign or attest the documents without mentioning their names, had issued specific directions on 7.3.2011 to all the officers to disclose their complete identity by mentioning their names and designation. A copy of the order was sent to the Chief Secretary, Haryana for circulation. Despite this, repeatedly the papers are placed before the court which are signed by the officers, but their names not mentioned. Either the order passed by the court has not been circulated or the officers concerned are not complying with the same. The name of Sub Registrar, Chhachhrauli is stated to be Mohinder Singh Sangwan (presently posted as Tehsildar, Indri). Let a notice be issued to Mohinder Singh Sangwan for 20.10.2011 to show cause as to why proceedings for contempt be not initiated against him for violation of the directions issued by this court. Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in court, accepts notice on his behalf. During investigation, Mohinder Singh Sangwan, the then Sub Registrar, Chhachhrauli stated that he had gone to the residence, where Santosh Devi was residing with her relatives. She had signed in his presence. However, he does not remember the place where he had gone. There is no provision in the Manual for taking the address of the person whose residence is to be visited for execution of power of attorney under special circumstances. There is nothing in his statement or in further investigation as to at what time he had gone to the place where Santosh Criminal Misc.-M No. 23609 of 2011 [6] Devi was residing with her relatives. The mode of transport is also not mentioned. If the Sub Registrar had gone on official duty for which requisite fee was deposited with the Treasury for registration of a document, he must have used official vehicle. Two documents, namely, power of attorneys registered before and after the power of attorney in question do not contain the time at which those were registered. Once the documents are registered and there is computerization and the entire record is maintained there, the minimum, it should contain is the time of registration along with date which could very well establish as to whether after registration of first document, in between the Sub Registrar had gone to the residence of the executant for registration of the document and thereafter came back and registered another document. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, petitioner- Arun Goyal does not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. As petitioner- Arun Goyal has withdrawn power of attorney given to his counsel-Mr. Amit Rawal, he had appeared in person in court. After dismissal of the petition, he was directed to be taken into custody. Investigating Officer- SI Randhir Singh, who is present in court, has taken him in custody. As enquiry in the present case is to be made from the then Sub Registrar, Chhachhrauli, it would be appropriate if the investigation of the case is entrusted to a senior police officer. A photo copy of the order be handed over to learned counsel for the State by the Bench Secretary under his signatures and further be sent to the court below through fax. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 26.9.2011 mk