Crl. Misc. No.M-22345 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: December 01, 2011. (1) Crl. Misc. No.M-22345 of 2011 (O&M). Modan and others .. Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana. .. Respondent * * * (2) Crl. Misc. No.M-23770 of 2011. Smt.Kesar .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana. .. Respondent * * * (3) Crl. Misc. No.M-26267 of 2011. Krishan and others .. Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.Arun Beniwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Sushma Chopra, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr.K.S.Godara, Advocate, for the complainant. . . . 1 Crl. Misc. No.M-22345 of 2011 (O&M) M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL). This order will dispose of the above noted three petitions i.e., Crl. Misc. No.M-22345 of 2011 filed by Modan and Sri Chand; Crl. Misc. No.M-23770 of 2011, filed by Smt.Kesar; and Crl. Misc. No.M-26267 of 2011, filed by Krishan, Bhim, Shishpal, Tara and Jagdev. The petitioners seek the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of complainant Angad alleging that there had been a civil litigation between the complainant and the petitioners and the petitioners along with Wazir, Modan and Sri Chand, who are not actually declared owners of the property have sold the property measuring 62 kanals during pendency to Inder Singh and his wife Smt.Kesar. Counsel for the complainant has intervened to oppose the application for pre-arrest bail contending that the sellers did not have a perfect title in the property which has been sold to Smt.Kesar and her husband Inder Singh. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the complainant and gone through the details of the various cases pending between the parties. In nutshell, the allegations against the sellers are that they had sold the property exceeding their ownership rights and that the rights have not been crystalized till date on account of pendency of various cases. In this context, a reference can be made to judgment in case Mohd. Ibrahim and another Vs. State of Bihar and another, 2009 (4) . . . 2 Crl. Misc. No.M-22345 of 2011 (O&M) RCR (Crl.), 369, settling the proposition of law that when an accused sells a property to another person claiming himself to be the owner and executing a registered sale deed, no offence of forgery under Sections 467 and 471 IPC, can be said to be made out and that it is the purchaser who has got locus standi to file the complaint under Section 420 IPC, and not the owners. In the said case, Hon'ble the Apex Court was pleased to quash the complaint filed by the owner under Section 420 IPC. Counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the petitioners have played fraud and purchased the rights of the complainant. The dispute regarding the civil rights of the parties can be ironed out in the civil proceedings. Without expression of any opinion regarding the validity of the sale deed or the extent of rights transferred by virtue of the disputed sale deed, it is sufficient to observe that the petitioners who are sellers and purchasers have already joined investigation. The dispute between the parties regarding the title is to be determined by the civil Courts in the litigation pending uptil High Court. The petitioners have joined investigation. They can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. It does not appear to be a case of custodial interrogation. The case of the prosecution will rest upon the documents which seem to have been already handed over by the complainant party to the prosecution agency. All the three petitions are allowed. It is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioners they will be released on bail to the . . . 3 Crl. Misc. No.M-22345 of 2011 (O&M) satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioners will join the investigation as and when required by the police; (ii) That the petitioners will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation, in any manner; Nothing mentioned in this order will prejudice the rights of the parties in any civil litigation. This order will remain operative till the presentation of challan. The petitioners would be required to furnish fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE December 01, 2011. rka . . . 4