CRM-M- No. 8223 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M- No. 8223 of 2011 Date of Decision : April 5, 2011 Suresh Sehgal ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent **** 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. Puneet Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the complainant. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.52 dated 24.2.2010, under Sections 406,420,120 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Division No.4, District Jalandhar. As per the prosecution story, the demised property i.e. House No.517 R, Model Town Jalandhar belongs to Amrik Singh and Avtar Singh, who are residing abroad. Neena alongwith property dealer Charanjit Singh assured the complainant Didar Singh that she is the owner and has authority CRM-M- No. 8223 of 2011 2 to sell the demised property in question and believing Neena and property dealer Charanjit Singh, he (complainant) has agreed to purchase the property for ` 1,95,70,000/- ; a written agreement was executed by Neena as seller in favour of complainant’s wife Darshan Kaur and his son Kaljinder Pal Singh; the wife and son of the complainant had paid ` 40,00,000/- to the alleged vendor Neena and it was agreed that sale deed would be executed on or before 25.4.2008. Again ` 50,00,000/- were paid to the seller Neena under the receipt executed on the back of the agreement and time to execute the sale deed was further extended till 30.5.2008; thereafter Neena refused to execute the sale deed and on inquiry complainant found that Neena has cheated him, his wife and son by showing herself as owner of the property while it was found by the complainant that Neena was neither the owner nor had any authority to sell the demised property. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that after one year of the registration of the FIR, the petitioner was called by the Additional Commissioner of Police, Satinder Pal Singh, in his office and demanded ` 30 lacs from the petitioner; when the petitioner asked him the reason, he told that he is investigating the alleged complaint of Neena Singla against the petitioner in relation to Kothi No.517-R, Model Town, Jalandhar; when the petitioner told him that he is unable to arrange the illegal demand made by him then the said ACP Satinder Pal Singh threatened the petitioner that he will falsely implicate the petitioner in the false FIR under Section 420 IPC etc and put him behind the bars; on hearing this, immediately the petitioner made a complaint dated 10.01.2011 to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh with a copy to the Chief Minister of Punjab, Chandigarh, the Director CRM-M- No. 8223 of 2011 3 General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh and the Chairman, Human Rights Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, under the Speed Post; Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice did not take the cognizance of the complaint made by the petitioner on the ground that no action is possible on the administrative side; however, the Punjab State Human Rights Commission took cognizance of the complaint, which was registered as Complaint No.561/8/2011; since serious allegations have been levelled against a senior serving police official, Commission took cognizance of the matter and called for the report in the matter from Home Department through Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar; after the Punjab State Human Rights Commission issued notice in the complaint made by the petitioner against ACP Satinder Pal Singh, he immediately instructed the concerned SHO and the Incharge, Anti Fraud Cell to arrest the petitioner; the Incharge, Anti Fraud Cell thereafter picked up Shiv Bahadur, servant of Shivender Sehgal @ Shiv Sehgal and got recorded his statement under threat and later took him to the Magistrate and got recorded his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after tutoring him. The statement of Shiv Bahadur was got recorded by the Police before the JMIC on 14.02.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that one Avtar Singh son of Hari Singh and Amrik Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh resident of Talwandi Road, Zira, District Ferozepur, executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one Shiv Bahadur son of Janki Dass, resident of Plot No.80, Partap Bagh, Jalandhar, servant of Shiv Sehgal son of Virender Sehgal with regard to House No.517-R, Model Town Jalandhar, area 37 marlas 41 square feet. In the General Power of Attorney executed by Avtar Singh and Amrik Singh in favour of the said Shiv Bahadur, Shiv Bahadur has been given all powers with regard to sell, mortgage, Hibba, CRM-M- No. 8223 of 2011 4 exchange in any manner; Shiv Bahadur son of Janki Dass further executed a Special Power of Attorney dated 20.11.2007 in favour of one Naresh Singh son of Dubans Singh and Ajit Singh son of Kanshi Ram, resident of Makhdhumpura, Jalandhar, again both of them other servants of Shiv Sehgal son of Virender Sehgal; not only this, the attesting witness of the Sub Power of Attorney executed in favour of the Naresh Singh and Ajit Singh is Kuldip, who is Driver of Shiv Sehgal. A bare perusal of Sub Power of Attorney executed in favour of Naresh Singh and Ajit Singh would further make it clear that no complete address of Naresh Singh and Ajit Singh has been given in the said attorney. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that although Shiv Bahadur has delegated his power in favour of Naresh Singh and Ajit Singh by executing Sub Power of Attorney but still he on the basis of the General Power of Attorney executed by Avtar Singh and Amrik Singh entered into an agreement to sell the property situated at House No.517-R, Model Town, Jalandhar with Neena Singla wife of Pawan Singla on 1st March, 2008 for ` 1,53,00,000/- and received a sum of ` 20,00,000/- as earnest money after the execution of agreement to sell in favour of Neena Singla; this fact is proved from the legal notice served by Shiv Bahadur through his counsel to Neena Singla; since there was some dispute between Shiv Bahadur and Neena Singla with regard to execution of the sale deed or the payment made in pursuance to agreement to sell, Neena Singla submitted a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar on 24.12.2009 against Shiv Bahadur. In the said complaint Neena Singla also levelled some wild allegations against the petitioner stating that the payment of ` 20 lacs was made in the house of the petitioner to his servant Shiv Bahadur despite the fact that Shiv Bahadur is not at all servant of the CRM-M- No. 8223 of 2011 5 petitioner but is servant of Shiv Sehgal son of Virender Sehgal; when the complaint was received in the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar, one Mr. Iqbal Signh Kahlon, Inspector came to the house of the petitioner along with the complaint and supplied him a copy of the complaint made by Neena Singla to the S.S.P., Jalandhar; the petitioner immediately submitted an application dated 8.2.2010 to the Inspector, Anti Fraud Cell explaining his position, alleging that he is neither a party to the agreement nor Shiv Bahadur son of Janki Dass is his servant and he is unnecessarily dragged in the complaint, which is to harm his reputation as the petitioner is Ex-Mayor of Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that when Avtar Singh and Amrik Singh came to know about the misuse of power of attorney by Shiv Bahadur, Avatar Singh and Amrik Singh, the owner of House No.517-R, Model Town, Jalandhar, cancelled the General Power of Attorney executed in favour of Shiv Bahadur stating that they have lost faith in him as they have reasons to believe that said Shiv Bahadur son of Janki Dass would misuse the General Power of Attorney executed by them; after cancelling the General Power of Attorney in favour of Shiv Bahadur on 30.12.2009, Avtar Singh and Amrik Singh executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Sumit Sehgal son of the petitioner-Suresh Sehgal, resident of EK 123, Shivrajgarh Jalandhar; it requires to mention here that in the said Power of Attorney executed by Avtar Singh and Amrik Singh, no power of alienation or transfer the property in any manner has been given to Sumit Sehgal son of the petitioner but the power to look after the legal matters has been given; despite the fact that Shiv Bahadur on the basis of General Power of Attorney executed an agreement to sell with Neena Singla he still made another agreement to sell on 27.11.2009 with Ajay Puri son of CRM-M- No. 8223 of 2011 6 Raj Kumar Puri resident of House No.11, Basant Vihar, Jalandhar; This fact is evident from the legal notice got served by Ajay Puri son of Raj Kumar Puri to Avtar Singh and Amrik Singh along with Shiv Bahadur; when Avtar Singh and Amrik Singh received the legal notice from Ajay Puri and came to know about the alleged agreement to sell dated 27.11.2009 in favour of Ajay Puri executed by Shiv Bahadur, Avtar Singh and Amrik Singh informed Sumit Sehgal son of the petitioner, who was appointed as General Power of Attorney by Avtar Singh and Amrik Singh to look after the property and to defend litigation; Sumit Sehgal the son of the petitioner through his advocate, replied the legal notice served by Ajay Puri and it was alleged that Shiv Bahadur was not having any authority to execute the agreement to sell and the same was fabricated documents. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a bare perusal of the present FIR No.52, reveals that only allegation alleged in the said FIR are against Neena Singla who on the basis of agreement to sell in her favour has further agreed to sell the property in favour of Didar Singh son of Shankar Singh and therefore, Neena Singla and one property dealer Charanjit Singh has cheated Didar Singh son of Shankar Singh; police has falsely implicated the petitioner on the direction of ACP Satinder Pal Singh, as he was annoyed with the petitioner because the petitioner refused to pay a sum of ` 30 lacs as demanded by the ACP Satinder Pal Singh. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, on the instruction of Inspector Gurbinder Iqbal Singh, states that in fact Neena has lodged a report with the police stating that petitioner-Suresh Sehgal has executed an agreement to sell in her favour showing himself owner of the demised property and has received ` 20,00,000/- as a token money. On the CRM-M- No. 8223 of 2011 7 complaint of Neena, police has found that Suresh Sehgal present petitioner has obtained thumb impressions of Shiv Bahadur servant on the blank papers and has prepared forged documents in favour of Neena. Mr. Sandeep Arora, learned counsel for the complainant has stated that an agreement to sell was executed in favour of Neena by the petitioner and Neena in turn has executed agreement to sell in favour of complainant’s wife and son. Therefore, Neena accused has been cheated by the present petitioner/accused. Story set up by police as well as Neena that petitioner has executed the agreement to sell in favour of Neena on the face of it seems to be incorrect and concocted on the following grounds :- (A) Shiv Bahadur got issued one legal notice to Neena Singla through Advocate Gopal Thakur, Chamber No.181 District Courts Compound, Jalandhar on 25.1.2009 (Annexure P-9 to the petition) stating Neena Singla has failed to honour agreement to sell between them, therefore, earnest money of ` 20 lakhs paid by Neena Singla to Shiv Bahadur stands forfeited and agreement stands cancelled. (B) Complaint made by Neena Singla to S.S.P. Jalandhar dated 24.12.2009 reads that she had entered into agreement to sell with Shiv Bahadur and ` 20 Lakhs as earnest money was paid in the house of Suresh Sehgal. (C) Shiv Bahadur has executed one special power of attorney on 20.11.2007 in favour of Naresh Singh and Ajit Singh while Kuldip signed the power of attorney as witness. According to petitioner Shiv Bahadur, Naresh Singh, Ajit Singh and Kuldip Singh are servants of Shiv Sehgal. CRM-M- No. 8223 of 2011 8 (D) Shiv Bahadur again executed agreement to sell on 27.11.2009 in favour of Ajay Puri. Ajay Puri has issued notice to Shiv Bahadur, Ajit Singh and Amrik Singh, owners of the property which was duly replied. (E) If Shiv Bahadur is executing sub power of attorney, another agreement to sell and got issued legal notice through Advocate and has never been servant of present petitioner, prima facie, it seems that agreement, if any, in favour of Neena Singla was executed by Shiv Bahadur and not by present petitioner. Since serious allegations are made by the petitioner against ACP Satinder Pal Singh and story set up by the police and complainant at this stage does not inspire confidence, therefore, it would be just and proper and in the interest of justice that investigation must be carried out by a team of the Crime Branch of the Punjab Police consisting of three members of the Crime Branch headed by the officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. D.G.P., Punjab is expected to look into this. However, at this stage custodial interrogation of the petitioner seems to be totally unjustified keeping in mind the ratio of the judgment in “Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre versus State of Maharastra and others, 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 126, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that irrational and indiscriminate arrest must be avoided. This Court hopes and trust that the story set up by all the parties as recorded hereinbefore shall be investigated by the Crime Branch, Punjab Police. This Court further trust and hopes that before coming to any conclusion Crime Branch shall also make necessary inquiries from the owners of properties who are residing abroad. CRM-M- No. 8223 of 2011 9 Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and one surety of ` 20,000/- to the satisfaction of the present Investigating Officer. It is clarified that observation/discussion hereinabove are solely for the purpose of deciding present petition. (Alok Singh) Judge April 5, 2011 Anand