Crl. Misc. No. M-37879 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-37879 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: December 15, 2011 Rajinder Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. H.S. Grewal, Advocate, for the petitioners. GURDEV SINGH, J. The petitioners/accused—Rajinder Singh, Taranjeet Singh, Mohinder Singh and Balwinder Singh, have filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 359 dated 13.10.2011 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471/120-B IPC in Police Station City Sangrur. They have contended therein that Mukhtiar Singh, complainant, is a very clever person, who was eight times Sarpanch of the village and still a Lambardar and, as such, is well versed with the revenue matters. At no stage, he was unaware of the transactions being entered into and the documents being executed by him. As a partner in the firm his total investment was only of Rs. 3.72 lakhs He was having 60% share. The balance amount was invested by Rajinder Singh—petitioner No.1. The profits were shared by them as per their share in accordance with the terms of the partnership deed (Annexure P/1). The tractors and trolleys in dispute were in the names of the complainant and his grand son Gurjant Crl. Misc. No. M-37879 of 2011 2 Singh respectively, and they were never included in the earnings of the firm, nor the earnings from this firm were considered as profit of the firm. The complainant could not cope up with the hard work involved in the running of the business and decided to withdraw his share. As there were only two partners so there was necessity of introducing third partner before the dissolution of the firm. Accordingly, Taranjeet Singh-petitioner No.2, was introduced as a third partner on 28.3.2011 and partnership deed (Annexure P/2) was executed on that date. Thereafter, the complainant retired from the firm and deed of retirement (Annexure P/3) was executed on 1.4..2011. He also decided to sell the above said two tractors and those were accordingly purchased by petitioners No. 3 and 4, respectively. The documents and affidavit were duly executed by the complainant and his grand son, which were duly presented before the DTO for the transfer of those vehicles in the names of the purchasers. The names of petitioners No. 3 and 4 do no figure in the FIR and the other petitioners have been falsely implicated as a result of political vendetta. In fact, the dispute is only of rendition of account and petitioners No. 1 and 2 are ready to settle the account with the complainant. The FIR was registered on the basis of written application submitted by Mukhtiar Singh, complainant, to the SSP. He narrated therein that he is an illiterate person of 87 years, whereas Rajinder Singh-petitioner No.1, is retired Panchayat Secretary and former Sarpanch of the village. In January, 2001, he was told by that petitioner to start the business in partnership. Thereafter, they started the business of brick-kiln in partnership for which 5 bighas and 7 biswas of land was taken on lease from Bahadur Singh. All the paper work was being done by petitioner No.1 and he had been putting his signatures on the documents on the asking of that Crl. Misc. No. M-37879 of 2011 3 petitioner without knowing the contents thereof. He even contributed two tractors and a motor-cycle towards capital of the firm and contributed Rs. 71 lakhs as his share. Petitioner No.1, alongwith Taranjeet Singh-petitioner No.2, was getting the papers signed from him time to time and he had been putting his signatures on those papers by trusting them. His signatures were being obtained on different pretext. He was even taken to tehsil office by those petitioners, where his signatures were obtained on the pretext of getting the licence extended. Any time he made inquiry about the running of the business, he used to be convinced by petitioner No.1. When he asked Petitioners No.1 and 2 to disclose the account of sales of the brick- kiln, they evaded him. Ultimately, it was disclosed by those petitioners that they had already got the papers of brick-kiln transferred in their names and that his name has been deleted. He was threatened to face dire consequences in case he visited the brick-kiln. He never sold his share in the firm and never relinquished his rights in the property and his signatures were obtained by fraud to oust him from the firm and a total loss of Rs. 1 crore has been caused to him. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to press this petition on the ground that the complainant was Sarpanch of his village eight times and still is Lambardar and it cannot be said that he is an illiterate and had been putting his signatures on the documents, merely on account of the confidence alleged to have been reposed by the complainant in the petitioners and that he had been putting his signatures after understanding the contents of those documents. All the documents were executed by him with his consent and he voluntarily retired from the firm and has already Crl. Misc. No. M-37879 of 2011 4 received his share of the capital in the firm. At this stage, there is nothing on the record for concluding that the complainant is not an illiterate person or that he voluntarily executed the disputed documents. It is very much clear from the contents of the FIR that in order to oust the complainant from the firm and to get his vehicles transferred in their names, the petitioners forged different documents. If the complainant was to retire from the firm, he could have done so without introducing some other person as a partner. That part of the story of the complainant inspire confidence in the truthfulness of the facts stated in the FIR. The facts of the present case are such that it will be only the custodial interrogation of the petitioners, which will be in the interest of investigation for unearthing the deep rooted conspiracy. The very purpose of the custodial interrogation will be defeated once the petitioners are armed with an order of anticipatory bail. From the facts of the case, it cannot be said that extra-ordinary jurisdiction for grant of bail should be exercised in favour of the petitioners. There is no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. December 15, 2011 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE