IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cr Misc M 26169 of 2010 Date of Decision: 9.2.2011 Nachhattar Singh …..petitioner Versus State of Punjab …..respondent Present: Mr DS Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG Punjab. S.S.SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Section 438 CrPC seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner on 28.7.2010 for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 201 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Deep Singh son of Sardara Singh. It is alleged by the complainant that they i.e. Deep Singh son of Sardara Singh, and Gurcharan Singh son of Gopal Singh, are residents of village Talwandi Road, Zira, District Ferozepur. The accused Kulwinder Singh son of Pargat Singh , resident of Village Dhull, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran and Baldev Singh son of Gurbax Singh, Vicky son of Baldev Singh, Pargat Singh son of Gurbax Singh, Sonu, Rinku sons of Pargat Cr Misc M-26169 of 2010 2 Singh, Jagmohan Singh son of Jagtar Singh, are residents of Village Dhull, District Tarn Taran, now residents of House No.45, Anmol Enclave, Ram Tirath Road, Chheharta, Amritsar, had entered into agreements to sell their lands. Kulwinder Singh entered into an agreement to sell 8 acres land for `8,50,000/-. Balwinder Singh executed an agreement to sell 8 Kanals of land and received `1.00 lakh as earnest money. Gurmukh Singh son of Narang Singh had entered into an agreement to sell in respect of land measuring 31 Kanals 16 Marlas and received `3,50,000/- as earnest money. Gurbax Singh son of Wadhawa Singh and Gurmej Kaur wife of Gurbax Singh made an attempt to execute a sale deed of 15 kanals of land on the basis of a forged power of attorney, the photo copy of which was attached. Rachhpal Singh son of Gopal Singh and Kanwaljit Kaur wife of Rachhpal Singh had entered into an agreement to sell land measuring 40 Kanals 18 Marlas and received `10,50,000/- as earnest money. Jagmohan Singh @ Mintu son of Jagtar Singh, who constructed a double-storeyed house bearing private No.45 and his brother Gurdial Singh who has a registered general power of attorney dated 13.9.2007 had entered into an agreement to sell for an amount of `31,50,000/-, but he has not got the sale deed executed. The complainant side had, however, got their presence marked with the Tehsildar. Daljit Kaur @ Sarabjit Kaur wife of Avtar Singh son of Gopal Singh had Cr Misc M-26169 of 2010 3 entered into an agreement to sell land measuring 48 Kanals 8 Marlas for a sum of `4,00,000/- and on the basis of the agreement, the remaining `6,00,000/- were to be given to the second party which was given on 20.12.2007. The sale deed in respect of 15 acres of land was executed which was scribed by Deed Writer Nachhattar Singh (petitioner). He had said that he would make them appear before the Tehsildar and would give the Registry before the Tehsildar himself and hand over a copy of the same to them. Their photographs had been put on the sale deed but he had not given the sale deed till the date of lodging the FIR, whereas he has received the entire consideration amount from them. Therefore, there was collusion with the Deed Writer as well. Against the accused, it was requested that strict action be taken after registering a FIR for cheating and their money be got returned and they be given justice. The photocopies of the fake agreements were attached. The complaint was marked to by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Tarn Taran on 5.5.2010 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). After inquiry, the report was submitted by the DSP in the office of the SSP Police District Tarn Taran on 11.7.2010. During inquiry, the DSP summoned both the parties. Notices were sent to them repeatedly. The complainant party used to appear each time and they were joined in the inquiry and their statements were recorded. The other party, inspite of noting down the Cr Misc M-26169 of 2010 4 dates, did not appear. The DSP, considered the complaints, statements and on perusal of the record as well as on open and secret inquiry, found that Kulwinder Singh son of Pargat Singh, who is the son-in-law of the mother’s sister (Masi) of Satnam Singh son of Jagtar Singh, who is a relative of complainant – Gurcharan Singh, had shifted his residence from the village to Zira. Being a distant relative of Gurcharan Singh, Kulwinder Singh became familiar with him. He (Kulwinder Singh) talked to Gurcharan Singh regarding the sale of his land in village Dhull. Gurcharan Singh got ready to do the same. Thereupon, on 18.3.2006, Kulwinder Singh and his brother Harcharan Singh sons of Pargat Singh executed a sale deed in favour of Balkar Singh and Beant Singh sons of Gurcharan Singh in respect of land measuring 31 Kanals 6 Marlas @ `3,20,000/- per Killa (acre) after receiving `85,000/-in cash. Being a relative of Gurcharan Singh, Kulwinder Singh after taking him in confidence on 4.1.2006 got a sale deed executed in his favour from Gurmukh Singh son of Naurang Singh in respect of land measuring 31 Kanals 16 Marlas @ `3,20,000/- per acre after giving `3,50,000/- in cash. Similarly, Balwinder Singh son of Chanan Singh on 6.12.2006 executed a sale deed in favour of Gurcharan Singh in respect of land measuring 8 Kanals for `2,80,000/- after receiving `1.00 lakh in cash. Aforesaid Kulwinder Singh, Gurmukh Singh and Balwinder Singh, after receiving `12,68,000/-, `12,72,000/- and `2,80,000/- Cr Misc M-26169 of 2010 5 respectively i.e. a total amount of `28,20,000/- got scribed sale deeds from Nachhattar Singh, Deed Writer (petitioner), who told them to collect the same after 10-15 days. When Gurcharan Singh demanded the sale deeds for getting the mutation sanctioned, they started putting off the matter. They had neither handed over the sale deeds nor returned the money till date nor delivered the possession of the land. Gurcharan Singh later on came to know that the land regarding which Gurmukh Singh and Balwinder Singh had executed sale deeds, were not in their names. Ranjit Singh, Patwari, also corroborated this fact in his statement. Apart from this, Rachhpal Singh son of Gopal Singh and, Kanwaljit Kaur wife of Rachhpal Singh, also executed a sale deed on 6.8.2007 in favour of the relative of Gurcharan Singh namely Hakam Singh son of Bahadur Singh in respect of land measuring 40 Kanals 18 Marlas @ `5,00,000/- per acre after receiving `10,50,000/- in cash. Daljit Kaur wife of late Avtar Singh son of Gopal Singh and Gurdial Singh son of Avtar Singh also executed a sale deed on 6.8.2007 in favour of aforesaid Hakam Singh son of Bahadur Singh in respect of ½ share of land measuring 48 Kanals 8 Marlas @ `5,00,000/- per acre after receiving `4,00,000/- in cash. They received `25,56,500/- and `30,24,000/- respectively i.e. a total of `55,80,500/- on the pretext of getting sale deeds registered, which were got scribed through Nachhattar Singh, Deed Writer (petitioner), who told them to collect the Cr Misc M-26169 of 2010 6 same after 10-15 days. Hakam Singh demanded the sale deeds but the same were neither handed over to him nor the money returned nor possession of the land delivered to him till date. On inquiry, it came to notice that the said land was not in the names of Rachhpal Singh son of Gopal Singh, Baljit Kaur wife of Rachhpal Singh, Daljit Kaur wife of late Avtar Singh and Gurdial Singh son of Avtar Singh, all residents of village Dhull. The Patwari – Ranjit Singh had also corroborated this fact in his statement. It is also mentioned that at the time of recording the statement, Sarabjit Kaur had mentioned her name as Daljit Kaur and her husband’s name as Avtar Singh instead of Jagtar Singh. Similarly, Gurdial Singh had also mentioned his father’s name as Avtar Singh instead of Jagtar Singh. From the said facts, it was evident that they all had with a malafide intention, committed fraud. When Gurcharan Singh, etc. put pressure on Daljit Kaur @ Sarabjit Kaur, her other son Jagmohan Singh son of late Jagtar Singh got executed a sale deed in favour of Gurcharan Singh on 27.2.2008 in which it was mentioned that a sum of `31,00,000/- had already been received out of the total amount of `3,40,00,000/-, but they did not get registered any sale deed and they resiled from the agreements. Besides, a joint sale deed was executed on 2.10.2007 by Gurdeep Singh, Avtar Singh sons of Pargat Singh in favour of Deep Singh son of Sardara Singh in respect of land measuring 36 Kanals @ Cr Misc M-26169 of 2010 7 `5,00,000/- per acre after receiving `10,00,000/- in cash and by Baldev Singh son of Gurbax Singh son of Wadhawa Singh in favour of aforesaid Gurcharan Singh son of Gopal Singh in respect of land measuring 31 Kanals 16 Marlas @ `5,00,000/- per acre after receiving `10,00,000/- in cash. But neither the sale deed was got registered nor the money was returned. From the inquiry conducted so far by the DSP and on the basis of abovesaid facts, it was verified that Kulwinder Singh and Harchand Singh sons of Pargat Singh, Gurmukh Singh son of Naurang Singh, Balwinder Singh son of Chanan Singh, residents of village Dhull, Rachhpal Singh son of Gopal Singh and Kanwaljit Kaur wife of Rachhpal Singh, Daljit Kaur @ Sarabjit Kaur wife of late Avtar Singh alias Jagtar Singh, Jagmohan Singh son of Jagtar Singh, Gurdeep Singh and Avtar Singh sons of Pargat Singh, Baldev Singh son of Gurbax Singh, had committed a major fraud with Balkar Singh and Beant Singh sons of Gurcharan Singh, Gurcharan Singh son of Gopal Singh, Hakam Singh son of Bahadur Singh and Deep Singh son of Sardara Singh with common intention after having connived with Nachhattar Singh, Deed Writer (petitioner) in conspiracy by executing sale deeds in respect of different lands and receiving the entire consideration amounts and destroying the sale deeds of some lands and not handing over the sale deeds or returning the money and not delivering possession of the land. Therefore, it was necessary to conduct investigation Cr Misc M-26169 of 2010 8 after registering a FIR under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 201 IPC against the said persons. It was also opined that in case the persons were having clean hands, they would have appeared before the DSP and joined the inquiry on his repeated summoning. But they did not come present intentionally. It was recommended that the SHO PS Bhikhiwind be directed to investigate the case. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is only a Deed Writer and he scribed one sale deed but the sale deed was not executed because it was not signed by the vendor or the vendee and neither was it attested by the witnesses. Therefore, there was no question of getting the sale deed registered. The sale deed was not even entered in the Deed Writer’s register nor any duplicate copy of the same was prepared. It is submitted that it is nowhere mentioned that any amount was given to the petitioner either by the vendor or the vendee or by the party to the agreement. Therefore, the petitioner has not committed any crime by scribing the sale deed. It is also submitted that the sale deed is always given to the purchaser by the Clerk of the office of the Sub Registrar by getting the signatures from the purchaser as well as on receiving the amount. It is also submitted that the agreement to sell as well as the sale deed relate to the period of 2006-07 while it is alleged that possession was not delivered to the purchaser/complainant nor the sale deeds Cr Misc M-26169 of 2010 9 were returned to them. The complainant, it is submitted, has remained silent upto 28.7.2010 when the complaint was filed. In response, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is the Deed Writer and he connived with the vendors and assured the complainant that he would get the sale deeds registered from the Tehsildar (Sub Registrar) and then hand over the same to them. Later, the complainant came to know that the vendors were not the owners of the land for which they had executed the sale deed and obtained the sale consideration amount from the complainant. Besides, the sale deeds executed by the vendors were in possession of the petitioner and are to be recovered from him. It is also stated that Harchand Singh and Kulwinder Singh represented to the complainants that they were the owners of certain land situated at village Dhull but during inquiry, it was found from the Patwari – Ranjit Singh that the entire land was not owned by the vendors. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the case involves substantial amount of money. The petitioner is the Deed Writer. He had held out a representation to the complainant side to get the sale deeds registered from the Sub Registrar by making the complainants appear before the Tehsildar (Sub Registrar). He had neither given the sale deeds to the vendees nor had he made them appear before the Sub Cr Misc M-26169 of 2010 10 Registrar. Even the money that was taken as sale consideration, was not returned. It may be noticed that the case involves execution of several sale deeds for various parcels of land of which sellers were not the owners. The petitioner is a deed writer and has represented that he would get the sale deeds executed and registered before the Sub Registrar. The purchasers had reposed confidence in him to get the sale deeds executed and registered. It is normal practice in the Sub Registrar’s office that the deed writers before they scribe the sale deeds ask for the jamabandi (record of rights) showing the ownership of the seller and his competence to sell the land. It is on the strength of the said jamabandi that the sale deed is scribed by incorporating therein the fields numbers, the price of the land, the consideration amount and earnest money, if any, earlier received. The deed writers act as a guide for the sellers and the purchasers and ensure that the transaction is smoothly carried out. The allegations against the petitioner who is a deed writer, however, are that he scribed the sale deed but did not return the earnest money nor got the sale deed registered with the Sub Registrar. Therefore, the possibility of his being involved in the transaction in a surreptitious manner cannot be ruled out. The police is to investigate the case for which the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required to elicit information and material regarding his involvement. Therefore, in the facts Cr Misc M-26169 of 2010 11 and circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required and the present is not a case which would entitle the petitioner to the concession of pre- arrest bail. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. 9.2.2011. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge