IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M- 38335 of 2010 Date of decision : 14.3.2011 Mohan Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent Present : Mr. Vinod Arya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. *** S.S. SSARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 26.11.2010 for the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. The FIR has been registered on the complaint of Randhir Singh. It is alleged by the complainant-Randhir Singh that he entered into an agreement dated 18.2.2010 to purchase land measuring 16 bighas 17 biswas in village Karala, Teshil Rajpura, District Patiala with the owner Mohan Singh (petitioner). The rate was settled as `10 lacs per bigha. A sum of `30 lacs was given as earnest money in the presence of the witnesses namely Harpreet Singh and Balraj Singh to the petitioner. The date for the execution of the CRM No. M- 38335 of 2010 [2] registry was fixed as 10.11.2010. However, it is alleged that the petitioner executed sale deed on 11.2.2010 in favour of Sonali Garg and Smt. Kanta Bansal, daughter and wife respectively of Dharam Pal Bansal as also Roop Lata wife of Sh. Prem Chand and Smt. Kaushalya Devi wife of Rameshwar Dass. The sale deed was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Dera Bassi, vide Vasika No.4959 dated 20.7.2010. Therefore, they had committed fraud with the complainant. An agreement was entered into by the complainant with the petitioner on the asking of Balkar Singh and Harphool Singh, witnesses. The stamp paper for the aforesaid agreement was purchased from Zirakpur and the agreement was scribed at Dera Bassi. The purchasers had admitted that they knew everything about the payment, but in spite of that the petitioner and the purchasers in connivance with each other had conspired with an intention to defraud him. It may be noticed that the complainant has alleged that the petitioner, the witnesses to the agreement dated 18.2.2010 namely Harpreet Singh and Balraj Singh as also the purchasers namely Sonali Garg and Smt. Kanta Bansal, daughter and wife respectively of Dharam Pal Bansal; besides, Roop Lata wife of Sh. Prem Chand and Smt. Kaushalya Devi wife of Rameshwar Dass had acted in collusion with each other to deprive the complainant. According to the petitioner, the agreement dated 18.2.2010 is a forged and fabricated agreement. It is submitted that in November, 2009, the petitioner had CRM No. M- 38335 of 2010 [3] borrowed a sum of `5 lacs from Navraj Mittal alias Jony who before lending the amount asked for blank stamp paper and five blank cheques. The petitioner purchased the stamp paper worth `300/- from Mohit Jain, Stamp Vendor on 3.11.2009. The blank stamp paper and the blank cheques were signed by the petitioner. These were handed over to Navraj Mittal alias Jony and an amount of `5 lacs was given on the land to the petitioner at the rate of 4% per month. The petitioner was informed that the blank stamp paper and the cheques would be returned at the time of repayment. Thereafter, the petitioner was in need of more money and he borrowed `1 lac from Navraj Mittal alias Jony in the month of February 2010. The petitioner was asked to give one blank stamp paper along with two blank cheques. The petitioner then purchased stamp paper worth `300/- on 18.10.2010 from Zirakpur and he signed the register of the Stamp Vendor and handed over the same to said Navraj Mittal alias Jony. These were given on the same terms and conditions. The petitioner in the first week of May, 2010, it is submitted, cleared the loan by paying an amount of `7,26,000/- i.e. `6 lacs as principal amount and `1,26,000/- as interest to Navraj Mittal alias Jony and demanded back 7 blank cheques and two blank stamp papers dated 3.11.2009 and 18.2.2010. Navraj Mittal alias Jony, however, returned only one blank stamp paper dated 3.11.2009. Besides, five cheques were also returned. The second blank paper dated 18.2.2010 was not returned and it was informed by Navraj Mittal alias Jony that it had been misplaced. CRM No. M- 38335 of 2010 [4] It may be noticed that the dispute between the parties is primarily civil in nature. The prosecution is to investigate into the matter before filing the charge-report (challan). The case is based primarily on documentary evidence and nothing has been brought on record to show as to how the complainant had given `30 lacs as earnest money and what was the source as to the same. It is not shown that there was any intention of committing cheating with the complainant from the very inception of the agreement which was entered into on 18.2.2010. In consequence of the interim bail granted on 24.12.2010 by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation. In the facts and circumstances, the interim bail granted on 24.12.2010 is made absolute. Crl. Misc. petition stands disposed of. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 14, 2011 amit