Criminal Misc.-M No. 25387 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 25387 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.9.2011 Darshan Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. S. Bajwa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Rajesh Bhatheja, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The allegations in the FIR are that wife of the petitioner agreed to sell 39 kanals and 12 marlas of land to the complainant on 2.7.2010. The last date of execution was fixed as 30.11.2010. It was mentioned in the agreement to sell that the vendor is owner of 20 kanals of land, whereas sale deed for rest of the land was yet to be executed in favour of the vendor as she had purchased the land from one Tej Kaur. In fact, she was not the owner of 20 kanals of land on that date. Subsequent to the signing of agreement with the complainant, wife of the petitioner got the sale deed registered in favour of Gurmit Kaur and Rajwinder Kaur on 1.2.2011. The petitioner has been involved as it is stated that after receipt of money from the complainant, wife of the petitioner had handed over the same to the petitioner, who is husband of the vendor. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute is Criminal Misc.-M No. 25387 of 2011 [2] civil in nature. The vendor had purchased 39 kanals and 12 marlas of land from Tej Kaur. Sale deed pertaining to 18 kanals and 12 marlas of land had been registered in her favour, whereas sale deed for rest of the land was yet to be registered. The entire land was agreed to be sold to the complainant on 2.7.2010. It was wrongly mentioned in the agreement to sell that the vendor was owner of 20 kanals of land, whereas it was 18 kanals and 12 marlas. However, the fact is that she had agreed to purchase 39 kanals and 12 marlas of land and the same was sold in entirety to the complainant. On the last date fixed for registration of the sale deed, i.e., 30.11.2010, wife of the petitioner appeared before the Sub Registrar, whereas the complainant was not present, hence the sale deed could not be registered. In fact, the complainant could not arrange balance sale consideration. Two months thereafter, the land was sold on 1.2.2011. There is no mens rea as it is the fault of the complainant that the sale deed could not be registered in his favour. On the other hand, learned counsels for the State and the complainant submitted that the vendor as well as the vendee were present before the Sub Registrar at 3.30 PM and 4.00 PM, respectively on the same day and got their presence marked. It was further submitted that the complainant had been cheated of ` 18 lacs, which were paid as earnest money. The vendor was not owner of 39 kanals and 12 marlas of land, as admittedly the person from whom she had purchased the land, sale deed only of 18 kanals and 12 marlas had been registered in her name. Her claim that she was owner in possession of the land is also wrong. There was intention to cheat the complainant from the very beginning. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid submissions made by them, especially that the parties were present before the Sub Registrar on the date when the sale deed was to be registered and further that the vendor had purchased 39 kanals and 12 marlas of land from Tej Kaur, which was agreed to be sold to the complainant in the present case in entirety, even if there is some error in mentioning of the area of land owned by the wife of the petitioner, namely, 20 kanals as against 18 kanals and 12 marlas, in my opinion, the petitioner, Criminal Misc.-M No. 25387 of 2011 [3] who is husband of the vendor, is not required to be taken into custody for interrogation. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 24.9.2011 at 10.00 AM for joining investigation. In case of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for further investigation. He shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 14.9.2011 mk