CRM-M-16997 of 2009 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-M-16997 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 04.11.2009 **** Indervir Sharma . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr.Jasbir Rattan, Advocate for the complainant. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) in case registered vide FIR No.61 dated 12.6.2009 at Police Station Sherpur, District Sangrur, under Section 13(3) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) (wrongly mentioned as Section 13(3) instead of Section 13(2) as thee is no Section 13(3)) and Section 7, 13(2) of the Act. Notice of motion was issued on 27.6.2009 and petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court. Thereafter on 8.10.2009, following order was recorded by this Court:- “Learned counsel for the complainant, inter alia, contends that Devender Singh (complainant) entered into an agreement to sell of 12 bighas and 12 biswas of land to one Chattar Singh for a sale consideration of Rs.14 lacs. Out of which, buyer (Chattar Singh) paid Rs.10 lacs to the complainant. A dispute arose between the parties, which was settled by the then SHO, namely, Harpal singh, Police Station, Sherpur, District Barnala. In terms of the compromise effected between the parties, namely, Devender Singh and Chattar Singh, Rs.1 lac was paid and later on another sum of Rs.1,75,000/- more was also paid. The payment of Rs.12,75,000/- is not disputed by the complainant. The remaining amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was not paid CRM-M-16997 of 2009 - 2 - by Chattar Singh (Vendee) on the ground that out of 12 bighas and 12 biswas of land 4 bighas and ½ share of motor was not given by the complainant (Devender Singh) to him. However, Chattar Singh, in order to show his bonafide, kept Rs.1,25,000/- with a third person, namely, Arjan Dass as ‘Amanat’ that as soon as Vendor (Devender Singh) fulfill his part of contract, the said amount shall be paid to him. It is further alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner that Chattar Singh (Vendee) later on recovered Rs.1,25,000/- from Arjan Dass and sworn an affidavit (Annexure P-5) in this regard. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that his client is only concerned with his amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. At this stage, I find it appropriate to implead Chattar Singh also as a respondent. On the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, Chattar Singh s/o Meet Singh r/o Gobindpura, Police Station, Sherpur, District Sangrur, is impleaded as respondent No.3. Let notice be issued to the newly added respondent No.3 for 26.10.2009. Interim order to continue.” On 26.10.2009, following order was recorded: “Notice was issued to Chattar Singh son of Meet Singh, resident of Gobindpura, Police Station, Sherpur, District Sangrur, who has put in appearance though Mr.Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate. Chattar Singh is also present in Court, who has been identified by his counsel Mr.Deepak Bhardwaj. Chattar Singh has stated before the Court that he had taken Rs.1,25,000/- from Arjan Dass. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per his information, cancellation report has already been prepared but the State counsel is unable to make a statement in this regard because the Investigating Officer of this case has not come, therefore, she prays for adjournment. On her request, adjourned to 04.11.2009. CRM-M-16997 of 2009 - 3 - Interim order to continue.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have found that the dispute in this case is for recovery of Rs.1,25,000/-, which is to be paid by Chattar Singh to Devender Singh (complainant). Chattar Singh, who had appeared before this Court on 26.10.2009 stated that amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, which was kept with Arjan Dass as ‘Amanat’, is already recovered from him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that vide letter dated 1.9.2009, the Director General of Police informs the Inspector General of Police, Zone-I, Patiala, that there is no truth in the allegation against the petitioner of having taken bribe from the complainant. The Inspector General of Police, Zone-I, Patiala agreed with the enquiry and have recommended that further action may be taken per the enquiry report, in which the petitioner has already been absolved and recommendation has been made for submitting the inspection report. At this stage, learned counsel for the State, on instructions received from Jagtar Singh, SP(D), who is present in the Court has explored that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required In view of the above, order dated 27.6.2009 is hereby made absolute. Petitioner is, however, directed to join the investigation as and when called and shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged by Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) NOVEMBER 04, 2009 JUDGE vivek