Crl. Misc. No. M - 29171 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M - 29171 of 2009 Date of decision:- 25.1.2010 Sapna Gulati & Anr. ... Petitioners. Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. Mr. P.K.Longia, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Sandeep S. Majithia, Advocate, for Lalit Kumar. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) Petitioners, Sapna Gulati and Raman Kumar Gulati, have filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 54 dated 12.8.2009 registered in Police Station Division No.4, Ludhiana, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. They have contended that they have not committed any such offence and have been falsely implicated. Allegations made in the FIR are false, frivolous and vexatious and no offence is made out from the perusal thereof. It was Lalit Kumar who had executed the agreement to sell dated 15.5.2008 in favour of petitioner No.2 regarding the plot in dispute, after receiving a sum of Rs.7,00000/- as earnest money. Further a sum of Rs.2,00000/- was paid by petitioner No. 2 by means of a cheque and the balance amount of Rs.6002000/- was to be paid at the time of the Crl. Misc. No. M - 29171 of 2009 -2- registeration of the sale deed and the possession was to be delivered on that date. The sale deed could not be executed on that date and the date was extended. In the meanwhile, on the basis of the said agreement, petitioner No.2 agreed to sell this plot in favour of the complainant, vide agreement dated 4.7.2008, after receiving Rs.12,00000/- as earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed on 20.1.2008, after the receipt of the balance sale consideration. At the time of the execution of that agreement the complainant had the full knowledge that petitioner No.2 is selling the plot on the basis of the earlier agreement dated 15.5.2008 and that fact was also mentioned in the agreement dated 4.7.2008. Agreement dated 15.5.2008 was handed over to the complainant and she is in possession thereof. Even after the registration of the FIR, petitioner No.2 approached the complainant and told that she is still ready and willing to execute a sale deed in her favour but she refused and demanded back the sum of Rs.12,00000/-. The intention of the complainant has become mala fide on account of the fact that her husband is a Municipal Councilor and is an influential person. It is on account of that fact the present FIR has been registered against them. They are ready to join investigation as and when ordered by this Court and there is no apprehension that they would abscond and tamper with the prosecution evidence. Notice of the application was given to the State and the same has been contested by Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab, on its behalf. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant had the knowledge of the fact that there was only an agreement Crl. Misc. No. M - 29171 of 2009 -3- to sell in favour of petitioner No.2 and she agreed to purchase the plot from her on the basis of that agreement itself. Now it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant to allege that petitioner No.2 had no title in the plot in dispute and as such committed the offence of cheating. She also submitted that the petitioners were only to receive their commission as property dealers. On the other hand, it was contended by the State counsel that the petitioners cheated the complainant and dishonestly induced her to pay a huge sum of Rs.12,00000/-. The petitioners, who allege themselves to be property dealers, do not deserve any such concession of anticipatory bail. The FIR was got registered by Anuradha Nagar-complainant and she came out with the version that it was Raman Kumar-petitioner who entered into an agreement to sell dated 4.7.2008 for consideration of Rs.7200/- per square yard regarding the plot measuring 1015 square yards and received Rs.12,00000/- towards the sale consideration and that it was assured to her by both the petitioners and one Anil Kumar that the plot was free from all incumbrances and there was no dispute regarding their ownership. It is also narrated in the FIR that a separate guarantee letter was also executed by Sapna Gulati that the plot was in the name of the petitioners and the sale deed would be executed on the stipulated date. However, it transpired that the petitioners were not the owners of the plot in dispute and they misappropriated the advance sale consideration received by them. Learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to contend that there was an agreement to sell in favour of Raman Kumar -petitioner No.2 and as Crl. Misc. No. M - 29171 of 2009 -4- such she cannot contend that the petitioners had a title in the plot in the dispute. No such fact transpires from the contents of the FIR that the petitioners had no mens rea. Rather, it appears that there is some deep rooted conspiracy between the petitioners and others and they cheated the complainant dishonestly by inducing her to pay them a sum of Rs.12,00000/-. The anticipatory bail is an extra-ordinary remedy and is to be resorted to only in exceptional cases. There is nothing on the record to conclude that false FIR has been registered against the petitioners. It will be only their custodial interrogation, which will be in the interest of investigation. The very purpose of the custodial interrogation will be defeated in case they are insulated with an order of anticipatory bail. There is no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. January 25, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge