CRM-M 16537 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM-M 16537 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on Aug 27,2009. Saroj Bala -- Petitioner vs. State of Haryana --Respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. J.V.Yadav,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Partap Singh,Sr.DAG,Haryana,for the respondent/State. Mr.Sanjiv Gupta,Advocate,for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short,'Cr.P.C.) in case registered vide FIR No.345 dated 08.5.2009 under Sections 406,420,506 IPC at Police Station, Civil Lines, Karnal. The aforesaid FIR was registered at the instance of Narender Kumar, who has alleged that the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell, with Kapil Sharma son of Tilak Raj on 16.9.2008, a plot No.93, Sector 13, Urban Estate, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, measuring 8 marlas for a consideration of Rs.16,00,000/- and received Rs.7,00,000/- as earnest money on the same day. It was alleged by the petitioner that the aforesaid CRM-M 16537 of 2009 (O&M) 2 plot was allotted to her by Haryana Urban Development Authority(for short,' HUDA') under the Haryana Government Policy of 'Shaheed Quota'. It is alleged that application for allotment was made by the petitioner after having obtained loan from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sector 12, Karnal for which the petitioner had deposited Rs.90,900/- and Rs.1200/-on account of interest with the bank on 24.10.2008. After 3-4days, when the complainant went to HUDA office for depositing balance 15% amount of Rs.1,36,500/-, then he came to know that the said plot had been cancelled and resumed because the petitioner had applied under Shaheed Quota concealing true facts from HUDA. It was further submitted that the petitioner, in connivance with her brother Bhim Singh, who is an employee of HUDA, had got allotted a plot No.1863/62 measuring 6 marlas in Faridabad under Shaheed Quota and thereafter plot No.2203, in Sector 20, Part-III, measuring 8 marlas in Sirsa under Shaheed Quota and one plot of 6 marlas bearing No.1289,Sector 3 in Faridabad and also a plot No.93, Sector 13 of 8 marlas in Bahadurgarh under Shaheed Quota, though the petitioner was entitled only to one plot any where in the State of Haryana under the said quota. It is further alleged that when the complainant had requested for cancellation of the agreement and return of the money paid to her, she flatly refused which resulted in the registration of the present FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 15.6.2009,the petitioner has joined the investigation. During the course of hearing, the complainant filed applications bearing CRM Nos. 42650 and 42651 of 2009 to place CRM-M 16537 of 2009 (O&M) 3 some documents on record. The said applications are allowed and documents are taken on record. It is argued by learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner had been applying for allotment of plots under Shaheed Quota at various places by giving different addresses. He has drawn the attention of this Court to document Annexure R2/5 in which while applying for plot in Sector 62, Faridabad, the petitioner had given her address as C/O INDUSIND BANK, SCO NO.254,SECTOR 12 URBAN ESTATE, KARNAL. It is further submitted that for the purpose of applying for plot No.2203-P, of 8 marlas in Sector 20 Part-III at Sirsa, she had given her address C/o Balaji Medical Hall, Inside Parnami Nursing Home,Nilokheri. Further while applying for plot in Sector 3, Part-II, Fatehabad, Sector 19 Part- 20 III,Sirsa, the petitioner had given her address of House No. 1003, HUDA Colony, Sector 6, Urban Estate, Karnal and for applying for plot in Sector 13, Bahadurgarh, the petitioner had given her address of H.No. 1001, Sector 6, Urban Estate, Karnal. Besides this, the petitioner had entered into an agreement dated 16.9.2008 (Annexure P-2) with Kapil Sharma to sell plot No.93, Sector 13, Urban Estate, Bahadurgarh for a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- whose allotment price was only Rs.9,00,000/- as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner wanted to earn profit from the said allotment, though she did not disclose the fact that she has already been allotted a plot under “Shaheed Quota” in Faridabad. In reply to the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint because agreement to sell was entered into between the CRM-M 16537 of 2009 (O&M) 4 petitioner and Kapil Sharma. In this regard, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioner herself filed an application (Annexure R2/1) for transfer of plot No.93, Sector 13, Urban Estate, Bahadurgarh to the complainant. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence the application is hereby dismissed. Aug 27,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge