CRM-M- No. 34653 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M- No. 34653 of 2009 Date of Decision : May 10, 2011 Vijay Kumar Goel and another ...... Petitioners Versus Dr. S.L. Arora and another ...... Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pawan Girdhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate, for U.T. Chandigarh. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in criminal complaint No.7464 dated 19.8.2009 titled as ‘Dr. S.L. Arora vs. Vijay Goel and others’, under Sections 420,120-B of Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh. Undisputedly, petitioners and others have agreed to purchase property in question vide agreement to sell dated 14.3.2005 and 24.3.2008 from original owners Mender Singh and others. Thereafter, accused party agreed to sell same property in favour of the complainant vide agreement to sell dated 21.4.2008. The only grievance of the complainant is that petitioners were not authorized to sell the property in question because of Clause of CRM-M- No. 34653 of 2009 2 Chandigarh Administration; another grievance of the complainant is that complainant was made to understand that vacant possession shall be delivered to the complainant while in fact it is still in possession of the tenants; complainant further contends that petitioners have received earnest money and neither refunding the money received nor transferring the property, therefore, petitioners have defrauded the complainant. Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners has vehemently argued that even if entire facts are taken to be admitted no offence is made out against the petitioners under Section 420 of Indian Penal code. He has further argued that civil suit has been given colour of the criminal offence. He has further contended that it is the complainant who has failed to perform his part of the contract. He further states that complainant could have filed suit for recovery of earnest money alongwith interest and damages if ultimately it is found that as per the Clause of the Chandigarh Administration property could not be transferred. He further states that every buyer is supposed to purchase the property with open eyes. He further contends that before agreeing to purchase the property complainant has inspected the property in question and he was aware of the Clause of the Chandigarh Administration that is why he has agreed to purchase the property through power of attorney. Mr. Cheema further states that on the basis of alleged agreement to sell dated 24.4.2008 complainant has already filed suit for injunction before the Civil Court which is still sub- judice wherein authenticity and enforcebility of the agreement can be adjudicated upon. He has further stated that neither receiving of earnest money is in dispute nor agreement to sell in question is in dispute. According to Mr. Cheema, instead of filing suit for specific performance or for refund of money with damages complainant, who himself has not CRM-M- No. 34653 of 2009 3 performed his part of contract, can be permitted to invoke criminal jurisdiction to settle the score. This Court on 9.12.2009 has granted interim bail to the petitioners on the conditions that petitioners shall surrender before the trial Court and shall furnish an undertaking before it that they shall associate themselves with the trial and trial Court shall also be free to impose any condition upon the petitioners which it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case, including heavy surety and seizure of passport etc. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the admitted factum of the execution of the agreement to sell dated 14.3.2005, 24.3.2008 and thereafter 21.4.2008, prima facie, it seems to be a dispute of civil nature. Present petition is directed to be allowed. Order dated 9.12.2009 is made absolute. (Alok Singh) Judge May 10, 2011 Anand