CRM-M-18976 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-18976 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:08.08.2011 Surender and another . . .Petitioners Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Pawan Gaur, Advocate and Mr.P.K. Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Malik, AAG, Haryana. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This is a petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.24 dated 31.01.2011 under Sections 420, 467, 471 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Tigaon, District Fridabad. The FIR has been registered at the instance of Mahavir son of Late Sh. Jagdish resident of Village Sadpura Tehsil and Distt. Faridabad. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had filed a Civil Suit for declaration that they have become the owner of the property in terms of Sections 5 & 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (for short ‘the Act’) as they have acquired tenancy rights from the predecessor-in-interest of the tenants and are in cultivating possession continuously for more than 30 years on the nominal land revenue. In the said case all the respondents were proceeded against ex parte and the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 26.8.2009 declared the petitioners as owner in possession. The petitioners sold the property to Ms.Tammana vide sale deed dated 31.8.2009. Thereafter, after two years, the present FIR has been registered by the son of Jagdish, who was arrayed as defendant No.3 in the Civil Suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that defendant No.14 Hari Kishan has filed application for setting aside the ex parte decree and the matter is still pending before the Court below. CRM-M-18976 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - In reply, learned counsel for respondent/State has submitted that the petitioners have played a fraud even before the Civil Court as they had impleaded dead persons in their suit and obtained ex parte decree. He further submits that the recovery of the sale consideration of the land from the petitioners is yet to be effected. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is essentially a civil dispute. Moreso, the Civil Court is already seized of the matter as defendant No.14 has made an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the CPC as to whether the ex parte decree which has been passed by the Civil Court is in consonance with law or it has been obtained by the petitioners by misleading the Court about the service of the defendants impleaded therein. He further submits that in terms of order dated 16.6.2011, petitioners have joined the investigation. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions received from SI Rajbir Singh, accepts the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioners and also submits that they are not required for further investigation. In view thereof, order dated 16.6.2011 is hereby made absolute subject to the conditions already contained therein. Petition is disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) AUGUST 08, 2011 JUDGE Vivek