Criminal Misc.-M No. 18439 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 18439 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 06.09.2011 Kartar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mrs. Baljit Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. On 07.06.2011, while issuing of notice of motion, following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were recorded:- “Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the agreement to sell dated 6.7.2011 (sic 6.7.2010), it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner was not the owner of the property and had as a matter of fact en- tered into an agreement to sell with Jaswinder Kaur, Kulwant Kaur and Choor Singh, who were the original owners of the land in dispute. As per the said agree- ment, ` 60,00,000/- were given by the complainant to the petitioner as earnest money and ` 10,00,000/- were to be paid on or before 6.8.2010. As the complainant could not arrange for ` 10,00,000/-, the period for payment of the balance amount was extended upto 10.9.2010 and thereafter again time was extended on 20.9.2011 (sic 20.9.2010) till 20.11.2010. When the complainant did not come for getting the sale deed registered by making payment of ` 10,00,000/-, the pe- titioner had no option but to purchase the said prop- Criminal Misc.-M No. 18439 of 2011 2 erty in his name which he did vide sale deed Nos. 4531 and 4532 dated 3.2.2011. Counsel further states that the petitioner is still willing and ready to execute the sale deed which was agreed between the petitioner and the complainant vide agreement dated 6.7.2010. The petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation and cooperate with the same.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation. Learned State counsel submitted that considering the allega- tions against the petitioner, his custodial interrogation is required. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that once the petitioner had specifically mentioned in the agreement to sell executed by him with the complainant that he is getting right to sell the property in question on the basis of agreement to sell executed by the original owners of the land in his favour and on that basis he is agreeing to sell the property to the complainant and further that the sale deed was not got executed by the complainant, in my opinion, there is no concealment of fact as such from the complainant and the petitioner is not required to be taken into custody for interrogation. The petitioner is directed to appear be- fore the Investigating Officer on 19.09.2011 at 10.00 a.m. to join investiga- tion and thereafter whenever summoned. Interim bail granted to the petitioner on 07.06.2011, is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 06.09.2011 sharmila