IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 33085 of 2008 Date of decision: March 16, 2009 Pohla Singh and others ….. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent and Crl. Misc. No. M- 31357 of 2008 Date of decision: March 16, 2009 Kesar Singh ….. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present: Mr. D.S. Sukarchakia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Anish Garg, Advocate for the complainant. *** S.S. SARON, J. This order will dispose of Crl. Misc. No. M-33085 of 2008 filed by Pohla Singh son of Bhan Singh, Harmel Singh, Lal Singh and Tehal Singh sons of Kesar Singh and Crl. Misc. No. M-31357 of 2008 filed by Kesar Singh son of Bhan Singh. The facts of the case are that Pohla Singh, Jawala Singh and Kesar Singh are brothers. Jawala Singh executed a registered power of attorney on 11.7.2008 in Crl. Misc. No. M- 33085 of 2008 and [2] Crl. Misc. No. M-31357 of 2008 favour of his brother Pohla Singh. On 11.7.2008 Jawala Singh also executed a registered gift deed in respect of land measuring 80 bighas 10 biswas in favour of Pohla Singh. Thereafter, on the basis of the said power of attorney dated 11.7.2008, Pohla Singh on 15.7.2008 by way of a registered sale deed transferred land measuring 52 Bighas 19 ½ Biswas for a consideration of Rs.1,10,42,000/- in favour of his nephews namely Harmel Singh, Lal Singh and Tehal Singh sons of Kesar Singh (petitioners No.2 to 4 in Crl. Misc. No. M-33085 of 2009). Jawala Singh died on 25.8.2008. On his death, his wife complainant Harbans Kaur lodged a FIR on 31.10.2008 on the allegations that her husband Jawala Singh was owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 133 bighas 9 ½ biswas. Her husband was earlier married but there was no issue from the said marriage. The previous wife of her husband died and he got married with the complainant (Harbans Kaur). They, however, had no issue from their marriage. Jawala Singh had been giving his land on lease to Gurnam Singh and others. Jawala Singh had fallen ill in June 2008 and the complainant had got him treated. During his illness, he lived with the complainant. The petitioners came to know about the illness of Jawala Singh and on 9.7.2008 they kidnapped him from the house of the complainant despite his illness from mental disease. When the complainant asked about his whereabouts, she was threatened by the petitioners. The complainant on 9.8.2008 filed an application before the SSP Patiala and an inquiry was conducted by the DSP (Traffic), Patiala. The petitioners instead of joining the enquiry had grabbed the property of Jawala Singh i.e. land measuring 133 bighas 9 ½ biswas. It has been primarily alleged that Jawala Singh – husband of the complainant Harbans Kaur was not of sound mind and that the land which has been transferred by Pohla Singh on the basis of power of attorney dated 11.7.2008 in favour of the sons of Kesar Singh and by way of gift deed dated 11.7.2008 by Jawala Crl. Misc. No. M- 33085 of 2008 and [3] Crl. Misc. No. M-31357 of 2008 Singh in favour of Pohla Singh is only to defeat the claim of the complainant. It may be noticed that the sale consideration for sale of land measuring 52 Bighas 19½ Biswas has been mentioned as Rs.1,10,42,000/-. The gift deed is of land measuring 80 Bighas 10 Biswas. Nothing has been shown as to why the complainant Harbans Kaur has been excluded. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that Jawala Singh was present during the time of execution of the power of attorney and his photograph is there with that of the Tehsildar. It is submitted that the gift deed has been executed by the deceased Jawala Singh himself and the case of the complainant, if any, is that of a civil liability only and no criminal liability is there and neither can any be fastened on the petitioners. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that though the petitioners have been appearing before the Investigating Officer, however, they are not co-operating in the investigation of the case and the matter requires further probe. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the execution of the sale deed by Pohla Singh (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. 33085 of 2008) on the basis of the power of attorney dated 11.7.2008 and the gift deed dated 11.7.2008 by Jawala Singh in favour of Pohla Singh are not free from doubt and there is nothing to show as to why the complainant who is the wife of the deceased Jawala Singh would be excluded from his property. Therefore, according to him, the matter requires to be thoroughly investigated for which custodial interrogation of the petitioners would be required. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that there are suspicious circumstances which would require to be ascertained as to whom the amount of Rs.1,10,42000/- was paid and if paid where has the amount been kept or expended. It would also require to be considered as to whether the execution Crl. Misc. No. M- 33085 of 2008 and [4] Crl. Misc. No. M-31357 of 2008 of the sale deed and the gift deed are beyond shadow of doubt. Besides, the fact that the complainant who is the wife of the deceased Jawala Singh has been excluded from his estate would also require to be considered and investigated. However, insofar as Kesar Singh (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-31357 of 2008) is concerned, it may be noticed that he is only the father of the accused Harmel Singh, Lal Singh and Tehal Singh (petitioners in Crl. Misc. No. M-33085 of 2008). Therefore, he is in no manner a beneficiary of the transactions which are alleged to have taken place. In view of the above, the custodial interrogation of Pohla Singh, Harmel Singh, Lal Singh and Tehal Singh (petitioners in Crl. Misc. No M-33085 of 2008) would be required for the purpose of considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, Crl. Misc. No. M-33085 of 2008 is dismissed. However, Crl. Misc. No. M-31357 of 2008 filed by Kesar Singh is allowed and the petitioner Kesar Singh in the event of his arrest shall be admitted to pre-arrest bail subject to his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall join investigation as and when called and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438(2) CrPC. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 16, 2009 amit