Criminal Misc.No. M- 28942 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No. M- 28942 of 2010 Date of decision:- 4.10.2010 Rachhpal Kaur and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mr. Bikramjit S. Bajwa, Advocate for the petitioners. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.10 dated 10.2.2010, under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Shahpur Kandi, District Gurdaspur. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully. Brief allegations against the petitioners-accused are that husband of petitioner No.1 Bhupinder Singh had taken a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from Punjab National Bank and mortgage the house in dispute with the Bank as security for repayment of loan. He did not return the said loan. He transferred the ownership of the house in dispute in the name of his wife and his son i.e. the present petitioners. There was no recital regarding the loan taken by Bhupinder Singh husband of petitioner No.1 from the bank in the said sale deed. The said house was sold to complainant by the present petitioners for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. This fact was not disclosed to the vendee by the present petitioners that the house in dispute was already mortgaged with the bank. Husband of petitioner Criminal Misc.No. M- 28942 of 2010 -2- No.1 stopped payment of installments of loan to the bank. The bank filed a suit for recovery. The possession of the house has also been taken by the bank and hence the complainant has been cheated by the present petitioners in connivance with husband of petitioner No.1 Bhupinder Singh. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in fact the complainant has been cheated by co- accused Bhupinder Singh as there is matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 and Bhupinder Singh and that an FIR was also registered against Bhupinder Singh and that Bhupinder Singh had told petitioner No.1 at the time of transferring the house in her favour that he had already repaid the loan of the bank and had shown her no due certificate with regard to the house in dispute. Be that as it may, the present complainant is nothing to do with the dispute between petitioner No.1 and her husband. The fact is that he has been cheated and he has paid Rs.6,00,000/- to the present petitioners and the possession of the house has already been taken by the bank. In view of these facts, it is not such a case, in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners-accused Rachhpal Kaur and Sukhmit Singh. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition for anticipatory bail to the petitioners-Rachhpal Singh and Sukhmit Singh is dismissed. October 04, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE