Criminal Misc.-M No. 24436 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 24436 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 29.09.2011 Sanjeev Kumar Jain ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the complainant. …. RAJESH BINDAL, J. While issuing notice of motion on 12.08.2011, following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that out of the land owned by Amarjit Singh and his sons, namely, Rajdeep and Gagandeep and one Kulwinder Singh, vide separate sale deeds executed between 22.4.2005 and 25.4.2005, 9,680 square yards of land was sold to Narinder Dhir. Out of the aforesaid land, Narinder Dhir agreed to sell 6,080 square yards of land to the petitioner vide agreement to sell executed on 18.3.2008. Earnest money of ` two crores was given to Narinder Dhir by the petitioner. Possession of the land was also handed over to him, as is recited in the agreement to sell. On the basis of agreement to sell executed in favour of the petitioner by Narinder Dhir pertaining to the aforesaid land, on 15.7.2008 the Criminal Misc.-M No. 24436 of 2011 2 petitioner further agreed to sell the land to one Anil Jain and earnest money of ` one crore was received. One of the co-shares, namely, Ashok Kumar filed a suit against Narinder Dhir for permanent injunction restraining him from selling the land beyond his share without partition on 2.9.2008. The petitioner is not a party to that suit. Another suit was filed by one Harmanjit Singh on 10.4.2009 against Narinder Dhir and Dinesh Kumar restraining them from dispossessing him from the land in dispute. The petitioner is not a party in the said suit as well. On 2.7.2009, Anil Jain issued a noticed to the petitioner for refund of the earnest money. On 13.8.2009, Anil Jain filed a complaint under Sections 406/420/506/120-B IPC before the Illaqa Magistrate. On 18.9.2009, Anil Jain on the basis of agreement to sell executed by the petitioner in his favour, agreed to sell the land in question to Amarjit Singh, Ashok Kumar and Dinesh Kumar. On 23.2.2011, the agreement to sell executed between the petitioner and Anil Jain on 15.7.2008 was cancelled and amount of ` one crore received by the petitioner as earnest money was refunded to him. Thereafter, on 12.3.2011, Anil Jain filed application before the Judicial Magistrate for withdrawal of the complaint filed by him against the petitioner. However, the complaint was dismissed in default on 3.5.2011. On 24.5.2011, Amarjit Singh lodged the present FIR on the basis of agreement to sell executed in his favour by Anil Jain alleging that the petitioner in connivance with Anil Jain, Narinder Dhir and Jagjit Singh, a witness to the agreement to sell, had cheated him. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner and Anil Jain have no Criminal Misc.-M No. 24436 of 2011 3 direct relations. He had merely agreed to sell land to him, which agreement was later on cancelled on return of the earnest money. In fact, Anil Jain had cheated the complainant by entering into the agreement to sell in his favour on 18.9.2009. Subsequently he got the agreement to sell dated 15.7.2008 executed in his favour by the petitioner cancelled by getting his earnest money back on 23.2.2011. Anil Jain had agreed to sell the property to Amarjit Singh and others on the basis of the agreement to sell executed in his favour by the petitioner on 15.7.2008, which he got cancelled later on. The observations made by the learned court below in the order rejecting the bail application filed by the petitioner that recovery of ` one crore is to be effected from the petitioner is totally irrelevant considering the fact that Anil Jain, who had paid ` one crore to the petitioner as earnest money is not the complainant in the FIR. The aforesaid ` one crore had, in fact, been paid to Anil Jain on 23.2.2011 when the agreement to sell in his favour was cancelled.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation. The aforesaid fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State. Considering the aforesaid facts, interim bail granted to the petitioner on 12.08.2011, is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 29.09.2011 sharmila