Criminal Misc. No. M-25332 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-25332 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.9.2009 Kuldip Singh .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the complainant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner is accused in FIR No. 94 dated 21.8.2009, registered under Section 420/34 IPC at Police Station, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. The FIR was lodged against the petitioner with the allegations that he had cheated the complainant by getting the sale deed of a different land registered as against what was shown to him. In location, quality of both the lands was quite different. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. In fact, he has been cheated by the complainant who was none else but a property dealer. As the petitioner is a drunkard man, some blank papers were got signed from him and were misused. He was even taken to Tehsil and a power of attorney was got executed by him which was otherwise not required. The sequence of events clearly establish the aforesaid facts. The alleged agreement to sell is dated 31.10.2007, which is shown to have been signed by the petitioner as vendor. On 19.11.2007, general power of attorney was got executed from the petitioner. On 21.11.2007, sale deed was got registered by the power of attorney holder of the petitioner in favour of the vendee and on 22.11.2007, an exchange deed was executed mentioning that the land, which was purchased by the vendee vide sale deed dated 21.11.2007, has been exchanged with other land, which was owned by the mother of the petitioner considering the fact that it was that land which was shown at the spot at the time of entering into agreement to sell. Mutation was also sanctioned without notice to the owner of the Criminal Misc. No. M-25332 of 2009 [2] land on 3.1.2008. He further submitted that immediately after coming to know about the aforesaid fraud having been played with the petitioner and his mother, the mother of the petitioner made a representation to the Patwari on 30.1.2008 praying for cancellation of the mutation. Finding merit therein, mutation was immediately cancelled on 31.1.2008. He further submitted that on 1.2.2008, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration claiming himself to be owner in possession of the land in question and also challenging the sale deed dated 21.11.2007, in which though the defendants were served but till date written statement has not been filed. It was further submitted that a complaint was made by the petitioner to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur on 31.1.2008 regarding the fraud having been committed with the petitioner and his mother. The FIR in question was registered on the basis of complaint made by the complainant on 23.5.2009 in spite of the fact that he was well aware of all the facts on the basis of which fraud is being alleged against the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same breath. Once he had appeared before the Sub Registrar for the purpose of registration of power of attorney, he cannot be permitted to raise the plea that blank papers were got signed from him and he was taken to the Sub Registrar in drunkard condition. It was further submitted that the complaint made by the complainant was investigated initially, however, the enquiry report was not accepted by the Superintendent of Police (D). Finding that prima facie case had been made out in the complaint of the complainant, registration of FIR against the petitioner was directed. Disciplinary action against the initial Enquiry Officer was also directed. Considering the aforesaid facts, to bring out the truth, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record. The admitted facts on record are that the sale deed was executed in favour of the complainant party on 21.11.2007 by power of attorney holder on behalf of the petitioner. Immediately thereafter on 22.11.2007, an exchange deed was also got executed mentioning that khasra numbers mentioned in the sale deed were different as compared to what were shown at the spot for the purpose of sale. The petitioner having come to know about the alleged fraud having been played against him by filing complaint to the police filed a suit on 1.2.2008, in which admittedly some of the defendants were served from February to June, 2008 and some later on. However, admittedly, till date written statement has not been filed. Still the complainant party, though claimed to have been cheated by the petitioner Criminal Misc. No. M-25332 of 2009 [3] and being aware of the cheating from the very beginning when the sale deed was registered, did not lodge any complaint with the police, as the first complaint made to the police was on 23.5.2009, i.e., more than 1-1/2 years after the registration of the sale deed and more than one year after the filing of the suit by the petitioner challenging the sale deed in favour of the complainant party and their appearance in the civil court. Considering the aforesaid facts, however, without opining on the merits of the controversy, in my opinion, the petitioner herein deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, it is directed that in case the petitioner is sought to be arrested, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for investigation. He shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 25.9.2009 mk