Crl. Misc. No. M-22550 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-22550 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 6, 2010 Smt. Kalawati ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ........Respondent ******* CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.390 dated 21.10.2009, under Sections 419,420,120-B, 406 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), Police Station Mohindergarh. The contents of the FIR as reproduced in para 1 of the petition read as under :- “..................That the complainant is resident of village Shayampura P.S. Satnali Tehsil and Distt. Mahindergarh and employee in the electricity board and peace loving person. 2. That the accused are mother and sons and were owner in possession of 2/3 share in agriculture land bearing khewat No.52 khatoni No.57, Rect. Killa No. 18,19,130 kitta 5 area 4/2, 19/6,15,16,6=64=48-07 total measuring 25 kanal 19 marlas vide jamabandi for the year 1998-99 vide mutation No.763 situated at village Payage alongwith their co-brothers. Copy of the jamabandi and mutation is attached. 3. That the accused said to the complainant that they requires money and their land which is in the name of accused Crl. Misc. No. M-22550 of 2010 (O&M) 2 No.1 and I complainant agreed to purchase 3 kanal 5 marla land in lieu of Rs.203125/- and it was stated to the complainant that the land is free from every encumbrance and accused No.1 is owner in possession of the land and the accused no.1 Kalawati Devi have every right to alienate the same and the accused when came to the complainant were also bring the copy of the jamabandi and mutation and vide which accused No.1 was owner in possession of 6 kanalas 5 marlas land. 4. That ater that sale deed no.1184 dated 29.06.2004 1/6 share of agriculture land bearing khewat no.52 khatoni no.57 Killa No.19/6 (4-04), 15 (8-0), 19/16 (7-7), 130 (0- 2) Kitta 4 area 19 kanal 13 marla i.e. 3 kanal 5 marlas land was registered at Sub Registrar office Mahindergarh. When the sale deed was executed then accused No.2 and 3 were present and all the work was done by accused No.2 and 3 only. Photocopy of sale deed is attached. 5. That after the sale deed, the complainant give it to the Patwari for sanctioned of the mutation then the patwari said that he has no time and after seeing the record, he will enter the mutation but halqua patwari lapse too much time and whenever the complainant said then the patwari said still I have not get the time and will work after see the record and after that election came and patwari was appointed there and after conclusion of election the patwari said to the complainant that accused No.1 have no land in her name as accused No.1 have already transferred land alongwith her sons and mutation No.784 on dated 24.3.2004 has already been sanctioned and the mutation in favour of the complainant cannot be sanctioned. Copy of the mutation no.784 is attached. 6. That accused No.1 and accused No.2 and 3 were in knowledge that the land is not in their name Crl. Misc. No. M-22550 of 2010 (O&M) 3 and they have already sold their share and cannot sold the land again but despite that accused in collusion have cheated to the complainant and have received Rs.203125/- by fraud and have executed sale deed by fraudulently while the accused bring the jamabandi with them had no mentioned of mutation no.784 otherwise the complainant would not purchased the same. 7. That accused in collusion and knowing that they are not owners and concealing the facts have agreed to sale the land to the complainant and executed the sale deed and received Rs.203125/- and on which stamp of Rs.16280/- has been affixed and except this other expenses of writing and registration has been spent and received Rs.203125/- while the accused were in knowledge that they cannot sold the same and the accused have committed offence u/s 419,420,120-B,406 IPC. 9. That the land situated in the village Payage and task an agreement were also taken place at village Payage Distt. Mahindergarh and hence the court jurisdiction. It is prayed that the complaint be sent u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the P.S. Mahindergarh to the registration of the case against the accused.” After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out. Petitioner had already sold the land in question vide sale deed dated 2.1.2004 and thereafter executed sale-deed in favour of the complainant on 29.6.2004 for a sum of Rs.203125/-. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner might be necessary. Dismissed. (SABINA) August 6, 2010 JUDGE Anand