CRM-M 9732 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on 04.11.2009. Sandeep Kalia -- Petitioner vs. Union Territory,Chandigarh --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.S.M.Sharma, Advocate,for the petitioner in CRM-M 9732 of 2009 Mr.M.L.Saini, Advocate,for the petitioner in CRM-M 27389 of 2009 Mr.Jasmandeep Singh,Advocate,for U.T,Chandigargh Mr.APS Shergil,Advocate, for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: This order shall dispose of two anticipatory bail petitions bearing CRM-M 9732 of 2009 (Sandeep Kalia Vs. U.T.Chandigarh) and CRM-M 27389 of 2009 (Manvinder Singh Vs. U.T.Chandigarh), which have arisen out of FIR No. 83 dated 02.3.2009 registered under Sections 420/120-B IPC, at Police Station, Mani Majra, Union Territory,Chandigarh. It is worthwhile to mention here that before approaching this Court, the petitioner Sandeep Kalia had filed bail application No. 401 dated 28.3.2009 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,'Cr.P.C), before the learned Addl.Sessions CRM-M 9732 of 2009 2 Judge, Chandigarh, which was dismissed vide his order dated 02.4.2009, whereas petitioner Manvinder Singh filed bail application No. 721 of 2009 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, which was dismissed vide his order dated 07.9.2009, On 18.4.2009, notice of motion was issued in CRM-M 9732 of 2009 and interim bail was granted to the petitioner Sandeep Kalia subject to his joining the investigation as and when called, whereas notice of motion was issued in CRM-M 27389 of 2009 on 25.9.2009 wherein the learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the order of bail granted to Sandeep Kalia, therefore, petitioner Manvinder Singh was also granted interim bail as well and CRM-M 27389 of 2009 was ordered to be heard with CRM-M 9732 of 2009 (Sandeep Kalia Vs. U.T.Chandigarh) vide order dated 25.9.2009. Hence, both these bail petitions are being disposed of by this common order. Briefly, the allegations in the FIR are that the complainant had purchased plots Nos.7 and 8 situated at Mohalla Old Darshani Bagh, Manimajra, U.T.Chandigarh from Kala Ram vide registered sale deed dated 25.11.1997 which was witnessed by his son Puran Chand, but later on, Kala Ram sold the said plot to his son Puran Chand on 09.5.2000 and Puran Chand further sold the said plot by executing a power of attorney and a Will on 24.5.2000 in favour of Sandeep Kalia (petitioner), who, in turn, sold the said property to Manvinder Singh (petitioner) who raised loan on the said property from the bank. The complainant has linked the petitioners in the act of cheating CRM-M 9732 of 2009 3 actuated by Puran Chand. Learned counsel for the petitioner (Sandeep Kalia) has, inter-alia, submitted that the petitioner is a Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation of India. The alleged plot was sold by Kala Ram to his son Puran Chand vide registered sale deed 09.5.2000. Puran Chand executed an agreement to sell in favour of Satya Pal Kalia and a Will on 24.5.2000 and also executed one power of attorney in favour of the petitioner, who is son of said Satya Pal Kalia, after verification from the concerned record about the sale deed dated 09.5.2000, which is registered at serial No. 296 , Book No.1, Volume 119, Page No.73 on 09.5.2000. Therefore, he was a bonafide purchaser without having any idea of the plot having been allegedly sold by Kala Ram to the complainant in the year 1997 before it was sold by him to his son Puran Chand in the year 2000, who had further sold it to the father of the petitioner Satya Pal Kalia in which transaction, he was only a general power of attorney. It is further submitted that since no sale deed was executed and Puran Chand had given his general power of attorney to the petitioner, therefore, on the strength of said general power of attorney, the sale deed was further executed in favour of Manvinder Singh on 29.9.2006. Mr.M.L.Saini,learned counsel for the petitioner Manvinder Singh has made submission on similar lines that he is a bonafide purchaser without notice. It is submitted by both the learned counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the orders dated 08.4.2009 (in CRM-M 9732 of 2009) and 25.9.2009 ( in CRM-M 27389 of 2009), whereby CRM-M 9732 of 2009 4 the petitioners have been granted interim bail, they have joined the investigation and cooperated with the Investigating Agency. It is submitted that the dispute is purely of a civil nature and is based upon documentary evidence. On the contrary, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that since the property was already sold to the complainant by Kala Ram vide sale deed dated 25.11.1997 which was witnessed by none-else than his son Puran Chand, therefore, Kala Ram had no occasion to sell the said property by way of registered sale deed dated 09.5.2000 to his son Puran Chand. It is further submitted that Puran Chand further sold the property on 24.5.2000 by way of execution of an agreement to sell and a Will and a general power of attorney was executed in favour of the petitioner Sandip Kalia, who has further sold the alleged property to petitioner Manvinder Singh by a registered sale deed on the strength of general power of attorney, therefore, all the aforesaid persons have conspired in order to usurp the property of the complainant. Similar arguments have been raised by the learned counsel for the State, however, he admits that both the petitioners namely,Sandip Kalia and Manvinder Singh have joined the investigation. Rebutting the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the complainant, learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners are bonafide purchaser and the offence, if any, is committed either by Kala Ram or his son Puran Chand because father of the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell after verification of the concerned record where the sale deed dated CRM-M 9732 of 2009 5 09.5.2000 executed by Kala Ram in favour of Puran Chand is duly recorded. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in which the petitioners have already joined the investigation and have cooperated in the investigation, the order passed in CRM-M 9732 of 2009 dated 08.4.2009 and the order passed in CRM-M 27389 of 2009 dated 25.9.2009 are made absolute. However, it is made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed to be an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case. 04.11.2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge