Crl. Misc. No. M-5996 of 2010 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-5996 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 17.08.2010 Lakhwinder Singh & Ors. ..........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. O.P. Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.S. Rawat, AAG, Punjab. Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed on behalf of Lakhwinder Singh, Tek Singh and Harcharan Singh in case FIR No. 28 dated 13.2.2010 registered under Sections 420,465,467,468,471,120-B IPC at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur, District Ferozepur. On 2.3.2010, while issuing notice of motion, following contention of learned counsel for the petitioners was recorded:- “Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that a civil litigation between the parties is pending before the civil court and status quo order with regard to land in dispute has already been passed by the civil Court. Learned counsel further contends that the complainant has also received an amount of Crl. Misc. No. M-5996 of 2010 (2) Rs. 2 lakhs as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement to sell in the presence of marginal witnesses. Learned counsel also contends that petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the witnesses only and they are not beneficiaries.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the same submissions raised at the time of issuing notice of motion. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioners were involved in agreement to sell, which was based on fake documents and the original agreement to sell was not produced before the police authorities during investigation. The agreement to sell dated 22.12.2008 contained forged and fabricated signatures of the complainant- Harwinder Singh and that agreement to sell was attested by petitioners No.2 Tek Chand and petitioner No.3 Harcharan Singh. The present case was registered against the petitioners after a detailed inquiry conducted by DSP (D) Ferozepur. Inspite of giving opportunity to the petitioners, neither the original copy of the agreement to sell was produced nor the petitioners have been able to explain how the said agreement to sell was executed and from which source the amount was paid to the complainant. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that although the petitioners have joined the investigation but inspite of giving opportunities time and again, they are not cooperating with the investigation. Neither the original copy of the agreement to sell was produced nor anything has been explained with regard to forging of documents, on which the agreement to sell was based. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the contents of the FIR. As per allegations in the FIR, forged and fabricated agreement to sell was prepared, which was attested by petitioners No. 2 and 3 and the present case was registered after a detailed inquiry conducted by DSP (D), Crl. Misc. No. M-5996 of 2010 (3) Ferozepur. Although the petitioners have joined the investigation and have not cooperated with the investigation. Neither original copy of the agreement to sell has been produced before the Investigating Officer nor the circumstances have been explained as to how the said agreement to sell was executed. Learned counsel for the petitioner was given opportunity to explain the source from where an amount of Rs. 2 lakh was paid to the complainant, as stated by the petitioners that an earnest money of Rs. 2 lakh was given at the time of execution of agreement to sell and that amount was accepted by the complainant. Although efforts have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to show that petitioner No.1 is commission agent and was having sufficient amount, which was paid to the complainant but he is not in a position to explain whether withdrawal of amount was from his account or was paid in cash. Since the petitioners have not cooperated with the investigation as per directions given by this Court, no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners is made out. Petition is dismissed accordingly. However, it is made clear that any expression made here-in- above shall not be constructed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. August 17, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No