In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M- 26566 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.9.2010 Charanjit Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Harpreet, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 52 dated 24.4.2010 under Sections 406/ 420/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Division No.4, Jalandhar. The contents of the FIR, as reproduced in para 1 of the petition, read as under:- “The complainant along with his family are Non Resident Indian and they are permanent residents of English. Darshan Kaur is the wife of the complainant and Kaljinder Pal Singh is the son of complainant. In the month of March 2008, the above named wife and son of the complainant came to India and at that time they were approached by the property dealer Mr.Charanjit Singh for Criminal Misc. No.M- 26566 of 2010 (O&M) -2- the sale of H.No.517 R.Model Town, Jalandhar measuring 37 marlas 41 sq.ft. Mr.Charanjit Singh introduced the accused Neena as the owner of the abovesaid house. It was told by the accused Neena along with property dealer Charanjit Singh that she is right and authority to sell and transfer the said property on behalf of the original owner namely Avtar Singh. Thereafter, the negotiations between the purchasers and the accused were held and after the negotiations the property was agreed to be purchased by us for a sum of Rs.1,95,70,000/- (One crore ninety five lacs and seventy thousand only). The written agreement to executed by the accused Neena as seller in favour of my wife Darshan Kaur and son Kaljinder Pal Singh and the accused property dealer Charanjit Singh signed the agreement as the witness. At the time of execution of the agreement, the purchasers Darshan Kaur and Kaljinder Pal Singh paid a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty lacs) to the seller Neena and she agreed to get the sale executed of the property on or before 25.4.2008 which was further executed to 10.5.2008. Afain on 9.5.2008 another sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lacs) was paid to the seller Neena and she signed the endorsement of receiving the said amount at the back of the agreement and she further Criminal Misc. No.M- 26566 of 2010 (O&M) -3- got the date extended and fixed for the sale deed as 30.5.2008 on the pretext of committing formalities for the said deed. Therefore in this manner a total sum of Rs.90,00,000/- (Rs. Ninety lacs only) has been received by the seller Neena with active participation of property dealer Charanjit Singh up on the inducement and assurance that the sale deed of the property in favour of the purchasers shall be executed by the seller Neena. Thereafter, we approached the accused Neena to execute the sale deed in our favour but she has no right and authority to sell and execute the sale deed on behalf of the original owners and she by falsely proclaiming her valid titled and authority to execute sale deed regarding aforesaid property, induced us to enter into the agreement for the purchasers of the property and under such inducement she received a huge sum of Rs.90,00,000/- (Ruprees Ninety lacs) from us. She has now refused to return the same on my demand for the refund of the amount as she has no authority to sell the property and to execute the sale deed. Both the accused Neena and the property dealer Charanjit Singh have cheated and committed fraud with us by inducing us to purchase have misappropriated and converted the same into their own use after committing cheating and fraud Criminal Misc. No.M- 26566 of 2010 (O&M) -4- with us. It is therefore, submitted that a criminal case may kindly be registered against both the above named accused and their accomplices and they may be got punished according to law.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. The dispute involved in the present case is purely civil in nature and is based on documentary evidence. The petitioner had merely signed the agreement to sell as a witness and the earnest money had been received by the vendor. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. As per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner is a property dealer and had introduced the vendee to purchase the property from the vendor, although the vendor had no right or title in the property concerned. Keeping in view the seriousness of allegations levelled against the petitioner, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner might be necessary. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 10, 2010 anita