Cr.Misc. M 20653 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 20653 of 2011 Date of decision: 2.8.2011 Amarjit Kaur and another petitioner vs State of Punjab respondent Present:- Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate. Mr. Arshvinder Singh,Addl.A.G.Pb Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI, J. This order will dispose of two connected petition filed by Amarjit Kaur and Harjinder Kaur (Cr.Misc. M 20653 of 2011) and Sikandar Singh and Sukhvir Singh (Cr.Misc. M 20654 of 2011) for the grant of pre- arrest bail in a case FIR No. 118 dated 6.6.2011 u/s 420/120-B IPC registered at P.S. Sahnewal, District Ludhiana. The said FIR was registered at the instance of Anil Kumar against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners had entered in to an agreement of sale dated 25.12.2005 regarding 192 kanals i.e 24 acres of land. The deal was struck @ Rs.26.50 lacs per acre and a sum of Rs.63 lacs had been received by the petitioners on the date of agreement of sale. The date of execution of sale was fixed as 31.10.2007. The complainant had alleged that though the possession had been handed over to him but he was not permitted to make Cr.Misc. M 20653 of 2011 2 any construction or to enter the property. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that no criminal offence is made out from the allegations in the FIR as the complainant has already filed a suit for specific performance of the same agreement. It was also submitted that breach of contract is a mere civil liability. Reference was made to Ram Biraji Devi and anr vs Umesh Kumar Singh and anr 2006(3) RCR (Cr.) 308 to contend that no offence is made out against a person, who is accused of having refused to execute the sale deed in violation of the agreement of sale. In the said case, the Apex Court had quashed a private complaint, in which the accused had, by an oral agreement, agreed to sell the plot on receipt of earnest money but had subsequently refused to execute the sale deed. I have gone through the said judgment. In the said case the Apex Court had, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, arrived at a conclusion that neither any guilty intention can be attributed to them nor there can possibly be any intention on their part to deceive the complainant. The facts and circumstances of the present case are absolutely different. The intention of the petitioners, in the present case to cheat the complainant from the very beginning is apparent. No doubt, a civil suit has also been filed by the complainant for specific performance of the agreement of sale, but the intention of the petitioners to cheat the complainant is further reflected from the act of denying even the knowledge and execution of the agreement of sale. Normally, breach of contract is considered to be a civil liability but when circumstances of a particular case indicate that the complainant has been induced to enter into an agreement with a clear intention not to implement the terms , in such Cr.Misc. M 20653 of 2011 3 circumstances an accused- person cannot be absolved of the criminal liability, especially when the necessary ingredients of cheating, as enshrined in Section 420 IPC are made out. In the present case, the complainant had been made to part with a sum of Rs. 63 lacs with a promise to execute the sale deed but the petitioners having even refused to acknowledge the said agreement, can certainly be attributed an intention of cheating. So far as petitioners Amarjit Kaur and Harjinder Kaur ( petitioners in Cr.Misc. M 20653 of 2011) are concerned, they being ladies, can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail as petitioner No.1 Amarjit Kaur is widow of Mewa Singh and petitioner No.2 Harjinder Kaur is wife of Jasbir singh, who has been stated to be mentally not stable. It will be debatable during trial whether while signing the agreement of sale along with other co-sharers, the lady petitioners shared a common intention with other co-accused to cheat the complainant . In view of the above circumstances, the petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Amarjit Kaur and Harjinder Kaur (Cr.Misc. M 20653 of 2011) is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the lady petitioners, they will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition that they will join the investigation as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation. So far as petitioners Sikander Singh and Sukhvir Singh (Cr.Misc. M 20654 of 2011) are concerned, they are admittedly the signatories of the agreement of sale as co-sharers. In the civil suit filed by the complainant, the petitioners have simply denied the execution of any agreement of sale despite the fact that they along with other co-accused had received a sum of Rs.63 lacs. They having indulged in prima facie the act of cheating, Cr.Misc. M 20653 of 2011 4 cannot be granted the concession of pre-arrest as no extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist qua them. Accordingly, the petition (Cr.Misc. M 20654 of 2011) for pre-arrest bail filed by them is hereby dismissed. August 2 , 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE