IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 1885 of 2009 Date of decision: February 26, 2009 Kasim ….. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ….. Respondent Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Khatkar, AAG, Haryana. **** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Harpal Yadav who has alleged that he has been defrauded of Rs.27 lacs. It is alleged by the complainant that Mehrudin and his accomplices Asu and Kasim Chaudhary (petitioner) had agreed to sell agricultural land measuring 58 kanals 10 marlas situated in Village Riwasan @ Rs. 18,50,000/- per acre. An amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the complainant vide receipt dated 9.2.2007 to Mehrudin through Asu and Kasim Chaudhary (petitioner) who were witnesses to the said receipt. On the basis of the said receipt dated 9.2.2007, the complainant thereafter entered into an agreement dated 13.2.2007 with Mehrudin. The sale deed was to be executed on 9.6.2007. The case of the petitioner is that he never appended his signatures nor is he a witness to any receipt dated 9.2.2007. Crl. Misc. No. M- 1885 of 2009 [2] Learned Counsel for the State has shown the Police file wherein the petitioner is a witness to the receipt dated 9.2.2007. In fact it may also be noticed that the land in question belongs to Smt. Laxmi Negi, Tulika, Tapasaya and Richa @ Tulsi daughters of Manmohan Singh. The petitioner in fact had been shown an agreement in favour of Mehrudin from the said owners namely Laxmi Negi, Richa @ Tulsi, Tapasaya and Tulika daughters of Manmohan Singh. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that a sum of Rs.9 lacs is also to be recovered from the petitioner as it has been stated by his co-accused that a sum of Rs.27 lacs was shared equally between Mehrudin, Asu and the petitioner Kasim. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant in fact has also filed a civil suit, the plaint of which is dated 15.3.2007. In the said civil suit it is submitted that the complainant, who is the plaintiff therein, has not made a reference to the fact of having given an amount of Rs.50,000/- in pursuance of a receipt dated 9.2.2007. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no receipt dated 9.2.2007. It may however be noticed that the receipt dated 9.2.2007 has been shown from the Police file. Besides, in the plaint it has been averred by the plaintiff (complainant) that defendants No.2 to 5 namely Laxmi Negi, Richa @ Tulsi, Tapasaya and Tulika entered into an agreement to sell with defendant No.1 namely Mehrudin on 9.2.2007 and defendant No.1 on the basis of the said agreement entered into sale with plaintiff (complainant) on 13.2.2007. The aspect as regards the effect of not mentioning the receipt dated 9.2.2007 in the plaint and being mentioned in the FIR would more appropriately be considered and gone into after evidence has been led in the case. The said fact of not mentioning the receipt dated 9.2.2007 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the plaint, is not such a circumstance, which would entitle the petitioner to the concession of pre-arrest bail in the criminal case that has been Crl. Misc. No. M- 1885 of 2009 [3] registered. Besides, recovery of Rs.9 lacs is also to be effected from the petitioner. In the circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would result in the elicitation of more and useful information. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE February 26, 2009 amit