Crl. Misc. No. M – 1528 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M – 1528 of 2010 Date of decision:- 9.2.2010 Rakesh ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Ashish Handa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raja Sharma, AAG, Haryana. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) Crl. Misc. No. 5082 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl. Misc. No. M – 1528 of 2010 The petitioner – Rakesh has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 582 dated 3.10.2009, registered in Police Station City Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. He has contended therein that no such offence is made out from the perusal of the FIR. He is owner in possession of the land to the extant of 1/5th share in the total land measuring 125 Kanals 5 Marlas on the basis of the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad in Civil Suit No. 586 of 19.7.2008. In compliance with that decree he got sanctioned mutation No. 3738 in his favour. It was Crl. Misc. No. M – 1528 of 2010 -2- only thereafter he sold that land, being the owner in possession of that 1/5th share. He has every right to sell the same. Notice of the application was given to the State and the same has been contested. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. This petition has been pressed on the ground that the petitioner was owner in possession of 1/5th share in the total land, therefore, it cannot be stated he cheated the respondent and fabricated the documents. When such is the position he is entitled to the anticipatory bail. The FIR was lodged by Mool Chand Saini-complainant against the present petitioner and others. He narrated therein that the transaction of sale was got entered by Parkash Saini, Guddu and Balwant, who took him to Subhash who assured him that the land was free from all encumbrances and got a price of Rs.26 lacs per acre. The deal was ultimately struck at the rate of Rs.25,50,000/- per acre and he paid a sum of Rs.2000/- as “Sai”. Subhash took him to get the sale deed executed in his favour from the true owner. Thereafter he was asked to pay a sum of Rs.15 lacs and get the agreement executed in his favour. Accordingly, he paid that amount and the agreement was executed. At the time of execution of the sale deed he was told that stamp waiver certificate is of Rs.80,25,000/- and full price consideration will be mentioned in the registered document. The registered document was executed by fraudulent means and a sum of Rs. 60 lacs was mentioned therein and he was told that a sum of Rs.79,84,687/- was written therein. A bank account was opened in the name of the present petitioner and they got transferred a sum of Rs.37,50,000/- from him in that account. Crl. Misc. No. M – 1528 of 2010 -3- Another sum of Rs.22,50,000/- was withdrawn in cash and on the asking of the present petitioner was handed over to Hari Chand. He was further told that the balance amount of Rs.4,84,687/- will be paid to him at the time of the delivery of the possession, which would be delivered to him after harvesting the wheat crop. After four days of the registration of the sale deed, he was informed by Ami Chand Namberdar that only 3 acres of land comes to the share of the present petitioner. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was the owner of the whole land, which was so mentioned in the registered sale deed and which was executed in favour of the complainant. When such is the position, it cannot be said that the petitioner committed any such offence. He tried to rely upon the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2007. The said civil suit was filed by the petitioner against Raja Ram for declaration to the effect that he was absolute owner in possession to the extent of 1/5th share in the land mentioned in the plaint. That suit of the petitioner was decreed and the land was fully described in the decree sheet itself. In fact Raja Ram against whom that suit was filed, was recorded to be the owner of 1/4th share of the land so described in the plaint. On the basis of the decree the petitioner became the owner of 1/5th of 1/4th share; which comes to 1/20th share of the total land measuring 125 Kanal and 5 Marlas. Thus he was not the owner of the whole of land which he agreed to sell to the complainant and which was so sold in his favour. From the contents of the FIR, itself it can be said that petitioner cheated the complainant and dishonestly executed the sale deed. The Crl. Misc. No. M – 1528 of 2010 -4- remedy of anticipatory bail is extra ordinary remedy to be resorted in special circumstances. The Court is to see the nature of the offence and the circumstances in which the same is committed before granting such relief to the accused. The facts of the present case are such that no ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. The petition is dismissed accordingly. February 9, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge