CRM No. M-28748 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh CRM No. M-28748 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : November 3, 2009 Gurcharan Singh ..... Petitioner vs State of Punjab ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. PS Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. JS Brar, Advocate, for the complainant. Rajesh Bindal J. While issuing notice of motion on 14.10.2009, the following contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner were recorded:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is owner of land situated in village Ghungran and Shahpur Sekhpur Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. The land owned by the petitioner was agreed to be sold by him to Sukhmilap Singh Ratol. In terms of agreement to sell the petitioner had received a sum of Rs. 12 lacs in cash as earnest money. Rs. 13 lacs were to be paid on June 15, 2009 and Rs. 25 lacs were to be paid on July 1, 2009. Last date for execution of sale deed was fixed as September 30, 2009 on payment of balance sale consideration. In terms of the agreement, the vendee/ complainant had paid to the petitioner two installments of Rs. 13 lacs and Rs. 25 lacs as agreed upon. However, before the last date for execution of sale deed, the vendee/ complainant lodged the FIR on September 29, 2009. The fact is that the petitioner infact had appeared before the Sub Registrar on September 30, 2009 and waited for the vendee to get the sale deed executed, however, he did not turn up. The petitioner is still ready and willing to get the sale deed of the land, mentioned in the agreement to sell, executed in favour of vendee on payment of balance sale consideration. Even otherwise dispute is civil in nature.” Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the aforesaid CRM No. M-28748 of 2009 -2- submissions and stated that he is still ready and willing to get the sale deed of the land executed in terms of the agreement to sell executed by him. The details of the property including the khasra numbers have been clearly mentioned in the agreement to sell and the allegations that a different land was shown cannot be imagined as the total deal of the property was for Rs. 3 crores and Rs. 50 lacs were to be paid as earnest money. He further submitted that in fact the land had been purchased by the Colonisers and since they did not have the sufficient amount to get the sale-deed executed on September 30, 2009, to avoid forfeiture of the earnest money, the FIR was got registered on September 29, 2009. Learned counsel for the State submitted that other two co-accused in the FIR namely Vikramjit Singh and Jagsir Singh, the property dealers, have admitted in their statements before the police that they had been shown different land by the petitioner than what was sought to be sold. Arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant are on the similar lines. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that specific khasra numbers have been mentioned in the agreement to sell from which the location of the land can very well be found, I do not find that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Accordingly, the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated October 14, 2009 is made absolute. The petition is disposed of. November 3, 2009 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge