Criminal Misc. -M No. 22215 of 2011 (1) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. -M No. 22215 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.10.2011 Om Parkash and others .. Petitioners vs State of Haryana .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Aashish Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Subhash Godara, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. S. K. Garg Narwana, Advocate, for the complainant. Rajesh Bindal, J. Prayer in the petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 201 dated 23.6.2011 registered under Sections 402, 506 IPC with Police Station Baldev Nagar, District Ambala. While issuing notice of motion on 25.7.2011, the following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners were recorded:- “Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners and the complainant entered into an agreement to sell on 7.3.2006. The last date for execution of the sale deed was 7.5.2007. The petitioners were present before the Sub Registrar on the date fixed. Manjeet Singh- complainant and Kulwant Singh were not present as they neither brought the balance sale consideration to be paid to the petitioners nor purchased any stamp papers. The sale in the present case was pertaining to a share of land. As per the terms of the agreement, the vendee was to get the land partitioned and the petitioners were to assist him in the process. The Criminal Misc. -M No. 22215 of 2011 (2) proceedings for partition of the land were initiated by the complainant after last date for registration of sale deed was over. No suit for specific performance of agreement to sell was filed by the complainant. Only a suit for mandatory injunction was filed seeking a direction against the petitioners to get the land partitioned and also restraining them from alienating the land in question. The present FIR was got registered more than five years after the agreement to sell was executed.” Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the fact that the petitioners have joined the investigation. However, he submitted that the intention of the petitioners was not clear from the very beginning as after receipt of earnest money and subsequent instalment, price of land was increased on 8.6.2006 from ` 1,17,00,000/- to ` 1,21,00,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in terms of the agreement to sell executed between the parties, the petitioners were to hand over the sanctioned mutation of inheritance of their father and also get the land partitioned. The complainant being vendees could not get the land partitioned merely on the basis of agreement to sell executed in their favour. The complainant had filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction seeking a direction against the petitioners to get the land partitioned. The suit was filed on 21.5.2007. As the intention of the petitioners from the very beginning was to cheat the complainant, they are not entitled to benefit of pre-arrest bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that agreement to sell was executed on 7.3.2006 and the last date for execution of the sale deed was 7.5.2007, no suit for specific performance of agreement to sell was filed, the complainant merely filed a suit for mandatory injunction on 21.5.2007, seeking direction against the petitioners to get the land partitioned and the present FIR was got registered on 23.6.2011, in my opinion, the petitioners are not required to be taken into Criminal Misc. -M No. 22215 of 2011 (3) custody for interrogation. Accordingly, the order dated 25.7.2011, granting interim bail to the petitioners is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. 19.10.2011 (Rajesh Bindal ) vs Judge