IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-4285 of 2010 Umed Singh V. State of Haryana AND Crl.Misc. No.M-4840 of 2010 Rajbir Singh v. State of Haryana Date of decision: 31.8.2010 CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for petitioners Umed Singh and Rajbir Singh. Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr.DAG, Haryana. Mr.Sanjay Vij, Advocate, for complainant. **** ORDER By this order of mine both petitions bearing Crl. Misc.No.M-4285 of 2010 and Crl.Misc.No.M-4840 of 2010 filed by petitioners Umed Singh and Rajbir Singh, respectively, shall be disposed of. These two petitions have been filed by accused- petitioners Umed Singh and Rajbir Singh under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.271 dated 16.9.2009 under Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Model Town, Rewari. Notice of motion was issued in both petitions on 15.2.2010 and on 22.2.2010 and arrest was also stayed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Crl.Misc. No.M-4285 of 2010 [2] petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case whereas they are bona-fide purchasers and complaint has been made by Radha alias Rekha, the widow of deceased Chand Singh, after a delay of more than about 10 months. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that initially the matter was reported to the Police Station, Dharuhera as residences of the petitioners are within the jurisdiction of Police Station Dharuhera. After a detailed enquiry by the police, no action was taken against the petitioners as the matter was of civil nature. Subsequently, the present FIR was registered at Police Station, Model Town, Rewari. As per allegations in the FIR, the car, tractor, trolley, motorcycle were never sold by deceased Chand Singh and his signatures and receipts thereof were prepared by the petitioners in connivance with in-laws of the complainant. A suit for mandatory injunction was also filed by the petitioners on 27.4.2009 and the civil Court, vide order dated 3.6.2009, restrained the complainant and her children from preventing the petitioners to use the vehicles in question and from alienating the same to the third party. The civil suit is still pending. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the matter is of civil nature and civil court has seized of the matter and the present FIR has been registered just to harass the petitioners and to put pressure or to settle score with the in-laws with whom the complainant is not having cordial relations. Mr.S.S.Mor, learned Sr.DAG, Haryana has opposed the bail on the ground that signatures on affidavits as well as receipts Crl.Misc. No.M-4285 of 2010 [3] were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison which were not found to be of Chand Singh. Affidavits as well as receipts have been fabricated fraudulently by the petitioners in collusion with Umed Singh, Rajbir and Kamal Singh as vehicles were sold on throwaway prices just to deprive the complainant from her rightful ownership. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the contents of the FIR and other documents available on the record. Admittedly, Chand Singh was owner of Alto car, tractor and other items. He died on 26.11.2008. All these items have allegedly been sold to the petitioners on the basis of affidavits and receipts in lieu thereof were issued on 18.11.2008, just one week prior to death of Chand Singh. Complainant came to know when she submitted an application before the Registering Authority for transfer of ownership of the vehicles. Case of the petitioners is that they are bona-fide purchasers of the above-said vehicles which were purchased prior to the death of Chand Singh, they have not fabricated any document, signatures on the affidavits as well as receipts have not been tallied with the signature of the deceased. As per FSL report, it is not the case of the petitioners that they have been cheated by putting false signature of anybody else. One thing is clear that the sale of the aforesaid articles has been made on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and the present petitioners being beneficiaries, cannot be said to be bona fide purchasers as Crl.Misc. No.M-4285 of 2010 [4] their case not is that they have been cheated by putting signature of the deceased prior to his death or after death by anybody else. The petitioners were aware of the death of Chand Singh and if the sale-purchase transactions took place prior to the death of Chand Singh, then signatures should have been tallied with the signatures of Chand Singh. As per case of the complainant, her husband never sold these articles and these articles have been sold to the petitioners by the in-laws just to deprive her from her rightful ownership as she was not having cordial relation with them and petitioners are party to that fraud. The civil suit is for mandatory injunction and not for declaration. The persons who are parties to the fraud, cannot be said to be bona fide purchasers in any manner and they cannot claim the concession of anticipatory bail as a poor widow lady has been cheated of her rightful ownership. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE August 31, 2010. raghav