Crl. Misc. No. M-16644 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-16644 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.7.2011 Jodha Singh ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present : Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Dhillon, Advocate for the complainant. Mr.Abhishek Chautala, AAG Punjab. Rajesh Bindal, J. The petitioner is accused in FIR No.37 dated 18.4.2011 under Section 306 IPC registered at police Station Barnala. The FIR has been registered on account of suicide committed by Shinder Kaur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Gurdev Singh husband of the deceased was owning 3 acres of land which was agreed to be sold by him to one Sukhpal Singh on 3.5.2005. On account of dispute regarding registration of sale deed, a civil suit was filed by Sukhpal Singh through attorney Malkiat Singh which was decreed in his favour but during the pendency of appeal filed by Gurdev Singh, he died. Shinder Kaur widow was brought on record as his legal representative and the matter was compromised. In terms thereof, the suit filed by Sukhpal Singh was Crl. Misc. No. M-16644 of 2011 (O&M) -2- dismissed as withdrawn on 17.11.2010. Thereafter, Shinder Kaur sold the land to one Sukhpal Singh. On the other hand, Malkiat Singh, who was attorney of Sukhpal Singh the earlier vendee, agreed to sell the land in favour of the present petitioner on 8.4.2010 during the pendency of the earlier litigation between Sukhpal Singh and Shinder Kaur. On account of non registration of sale deed by Sukhpal Singh or Malkiat Singh, Jodha Singh, petitioner filed a civil suit on 9.10.2010 against Malkiat Singh, Sukhpal Singh, and also impleaded Shinder Kaur as one of the defendants. After service of notice in the suit, Shinder Kaur committed suicide on 18.4.2011. With the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there can not be any reason for the petitioner to have instigated Shinder Kaur to commit suicide as for the disputes between the parties legal recourse was being taken. He further submitted that he had appeared for investigation and after conclusion thereof, even the challan has also been presented in Court. Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the fact that petitioner had appeared before Investigating Officer and after conclusion of investigation, challan has been presented. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the petitioner as well as Satnam Singh and Gurdip Singh both brothers are serving as police officials in Barnala where FIR in question has been registered and in fact, it is a land mafia which is pressurising and threatening people to grab their land either at throw-away prices or even without any payment. Shinder Kaur was made to part with 3 acres of land without payment of even a single penny. Shinder Kaur was threatened by the police officials of dire consequences in case the land in question was not Crl. Misc. No. M-16644 of 2011 (O&M) -3- transferred in their name. Learned counsel prayed that it is a case which requires further investigation to break nexus of the petitioner and the other police officials with the land mafia. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner had joined investigation and after investigation, challan has also been presented, I deem it appropriate to confirm the interim bail granted to the petitioner on 30.5.2011. Ordered accordingly. As far as grouse raised by the learned counsel for the complainant is concerned, in case she is aggrieved of the fact that proper investigation of the case has not been conducted considering the fact that persons involved in the present dispute are police officials, who are posted at Barnala where the FIR was registered, she may avail of appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of. ( Rajesh Bindal ) 13.7.2011 Judge Meenu