IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 33572 of 2008 Date of decision: February 2, 2009 Avtar Singh ….. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ….. Respondent Present: Mr. A.R. Sidhu, Senior Advocte with Mr. Rajesh Narang, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, DAG, Haryana. Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the complainant. *** S.S. SARON, J. The petitioner Avtar Singh seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The FIR in the case has been lodged on the complaint of Santokh Singh. It has been alleged that Smt. Manjit Kaur wife of Kanwaljit Singh and Gurmeet Kaur wife of Darshan Singh (mother of the petitioner) purchased a vacant plot on 25.6.1986. Thereafter, a family settlement was entered into in May 1991 amongst Gurmeet Kaur (mother of the petitioner), her sister Manjit Kaur, Kanwaljit Singh husband of Manjit Kaur and Dilawar Singh son of Kanwaljit Singh, besides, Jangir Singh son of Mit Singh. It was resolved that if Kanwaljit Singh gives four acres of land in Village Dhudianwali to Gurmeet Kaur (mother of the petitioner), then Manjit Kaur wife of Kanwaljit Singh would become owner of the shop to the extent of 1/2 share situated near the new bus stand Sirsa. Kanwaljit Singh purchased four acres of land in Village Dhudianwali for an amount of Rs.80,000/- which was paid by him. Thereafter, Kanwaljit Singh obtained a special power of attorney and then he got sale Crl. Misc. No. M- 33572 of 2008 [2] deed of the land that he purchased executed in favour of Gurmeet Kaur. In this manner Manjit Kaur became the absolute owner of the shop. Manjit Kaur executed a Will dated 7.11.1997 by which she bequeathed the shop in favour of her husband Kanwaljit Singh. Kanwaljit Singh entered into an agreement to the extent of 1/2 share of the shop on 28.8.2003 and delivered possession of the said shop to the complainant. The date for registration of the sale deed was fixed as 10.9.2003. The sale deed of the shop and vacant plot was executed and registered on the date fixed in favour of the complainant Santokh Singh. In the sale deed, the shop has been shown as measuring 15 ft. X 60 ft. and regarding the remaining ½ share of the shop and vacant plot, Kanwaljit Singh gave in writing that he was responsible for the transfer of ownership of the said property within a period of five years and he received a sum of Rs.3,75,000/-. In the event of failure to get the necessary transfer, 2% interest was agreed to be paid or he would give four acres land that was given to Gurmeet Kaur. The complainant replaced the roof of one of the shop and covered it to the extent of 15 ft. X 30 ft. and got electricity connection. It was alleged that Gurmeet Kaur had no ownership document and Kanwaljit Singh died due to heart attack. The complainant contacted Gurmeet Kaur through Daljit Kaur for getting the sale deed registered of the one half share. Gurmeet Kaur however asked for a higher sale consideration due to increase in prices. She said that her son Avtar Singh (petitioner) would strike the deal. On 4.7.2008 the complainant came to Sirsa which however did not bear any result. Then on 19.9.2008, Avtar Singh (petitioner), Rajwant Singh son of Harnek Singh and Khatta Singh son of Jhanda Singh resident of Chormar came to Sirsa and demanded Rs.11,00000/-, but the matter was settled for Rs.10,00000/-. It was agreed that Avtar Singh (petitioner) would get power of attorney from his mother Gurmeet Kaur and would get the sale deed executed on 8.11.2008. Avtar Singh (petitioner) came on the date fixed but stated that there was a mistake in the attorney and it had to be executed afresh. He promised to come again. Avtar Singh received a Crl. Misc. No. M- 33572 of 2008 [3] sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from the complainant in the presence of Rajwant Singh son of Harnek Singh and balance was to be received by him at the time of registration of sale deed, but he did not turn up on the date fixed. Avtar Singh telephoned the complainant that there was some emergency in the family and that the sale deed would be executed later. Thereafter two persons came to the house of the complainant in village Harni Khurd and they asked the complainant to give the shop to them and in the event of his refusal, he would have to face dire consequences. Later on the complainant came to know that the four acres of land which fell to the share of Gurmeet Kaur had been further transferred by her and Avtar Singh sold 1/2 share in the shop which was in the name of Gurmeet Kaur vide two separate sale deeds showing the shops of less area and possession had been shown to be delivered in the sale deed. In this manner, it has alleged that the petitioner defrauded the complainant of Rs.3,50,000/-. It may be noticed that the shop in question was owned to the extent of one half share by the two sisters namely Gurmeet Kaur (mother of the petitioner) and Manjit Kaur (sister of the mother of the petitioner). Manjit Kaur sold her half share through her husband Kanwaljit Singh in favour of complainant Santokh Singh on 10.9.2003. Gurmeet Kaur continued to be owner of the other half share. It has been sold by the petitioner to Kamla Devi on 3.11.2008 on the basis of power of attorney from his mother Gurmeet Kaur. The grievance of the complainant is that the petitioner had defrauded the complainant of Rs.3,50,000/- which he had given in the presence of Rajwant. Heard counsel for the parties. Admittedly there is no document showing the receipt of a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- by the petitioner Avtar Singh from the complainant Santokh Singh. The only evidence is that Santokh Singh gave the money in the presence of one Rajwant Singh who has also deposed an affidavit in this regard. The money is stated to have been given by the complainant Santokh Singh to Avtar Singh on 10.10.2008. Crl. Misc. No. M- 33572 of 2008 [4] There is nothing with the prosecution or the complainant to show as to from where Santokh Singh complainant got the said amount of Rs.3,50,000/- arranged to give it to Avtar Singh. This aspects would require to be considered and gone into during investigation. It may however be noticed that in such like transactions in case money had indeed been given, there would be some document or receipt to show the giving of money by the complainant and its receipt by the petitioner. In the absence of the same, the petitioner would be entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the interim bail granted on 19.12.2008 is made absolute and shall continue till the filing of the challan. It is made clear that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE February 2, 2009 amit