CRM-M No. 27757 of 2011 **** Sushil Kumar v. State of Punjab and another Present: Ms. Navdeep, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sumeet Abrol, AAG, Punjab. Complainant in person. **** This is a petition for anticipatory bail filed in case bearing FIR No. 147 dated 12.07.2011, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Navi Baradari, District Jalandhar, Punjab. On 13.09.2011 the following contention was noticed:- “ Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this is a dispute between the children and father and two of the children have already been arrested and released on regular bail.” The complainant is present in person. He has argued that his three children have made his life a living hell since they have sold the only house which he owned. However, he has also stated that in a petition for restitution he is likely to get back the said house. Learned AAG, on instructions fro ASI Surinder Singh, has accepted these factual assertions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Md. Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. reported as 2009(4) RCR(Criminal) 369 held as such:- “14. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed, to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. CRM-M No. 27757 of 2011 -2- But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing the sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in Section 415 are not found, it cannot be said that there was an offence punishable under Sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 of the Code. A clarification 15. When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and, therefore, not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint..........................” In this view of the matter even though this Court strongly CRM-M No. 27757 of 2011 -3- disapproves the conduct of the petitioner and his two siblings, yet it cannot be held that the complainant is an aggrieved person. In the circumstances I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In case he is arrested, he shall be released on bail by the investigating officer to his satisfaction subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE October 19, 2011 sunita