Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 15 January, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-41441 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-41441 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-15.1.2013
Mohan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Dr.Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
Petitioner Mohan Singh son of Banta Singh, a property dealer, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No.124 dated 13.12.2012 (Annexure P2), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station City Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC.
2. Concisely, the prosecution version culled out from the police file by the Sessions Judge depicted in the impugned order (Annexure P8) inter-alia is as under:-
"That the complainant is NRI and is also khewatdar of village Jasumajra. The complainant was to purchase land in the year 2005 and came in contact with applicant-accused Mohan Singh. The applicant/accused Mohan Singh showed properties on separate places. The complainant purchase some land free from all encumbrances and started having faith in applicant/accused Mohan Singh and used to follow the dictates of his applicant/accused Mohan Singh. The applicant/accused showed the land CRM No. M-41441 of 2012 (O&M) 2 measuring 5 acre situated in the area of village Ferozepur, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar by taking the complainant confidence and took amount of Rs.500000/- from the complainant. The applicant/accused by mentioning the numbers of land in agreement to sell dated 7.3.2010 of some offence instead of Harjit Singh vendee and cheated the complainant. The applicant/accused also got struck the land of land measuring 6 acre also situated in the area of village Feroajpur, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar against amount of Rs.800000/- (paid in two installments) but did not get the sale deed executed on or before the date of execution of sale deed rather put of the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant when started pressuring the applicant/accused Mohan Singh to get the sale deed executed the applicant/accused Mohan Singh ask the complainant to go abroad otherwise the complainant would not go abroad on disputing the matter and kept the complainant in fear of the same. The applicant/accused also got struck deal of land measuring 4/5 acre situated in the area of village Garhi, District Ropar and got the earnest amount of Rs.1230000/- paid to the seller from the complainant. The applicant/accused Mohan Singh thereafter a period of one month came to the complainant and disclosed the complainant that the seller of the said land had backed out from selling the same and assured the complainant to get the earnest amount returned to the complainant from them."
3. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail in the FIR (Annexure P2), in all, the prosecution, inter- alia, claimed that in this manner, all the accused, from the very beginning, had the intention to cheat, hatched a criminal conspiracy, actually cheated, misappropriated the huge amount of complainant, committed forgery, prepared false documents for the purpose of cheating, used the same as genuine and deceived him. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant Rajwinder Singh, the present case was registered against the accused in the manner mentioned here-in-above.
CRM No. M-41441 of 2012 (O&M) 3
4. After hearing the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.
5. Ex facie, the celebrated argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, lacks merit.
6. As is evident from the record, that there are direct allegations that the petitioner-accused, from the very beginning, had the intention to cheat, hatched a criminal conspiracy, actually cheated, misappropriated the huge amount of complainant, committed forgery, prepared false documents for the purpose of cheating, used the same as genuine and deceived him. The mere fact that petitioner moved an application dated 12.9.2012 (Annexure P1) for inquiry, ipso facto, is not a ground, muchless cogent, to grant him the concession of anticipatory bail, particularly when there are direct allegations that petitioner, who is a property dealer, has cheated the complainant for a sum of ` 34 lacs in the manner described in the FIR (Annexure P2). Neither he has got executed the sale deed in pursuance of the agreement to sell nor has returned the amount of earnest money taken from the complainant. The matter was enquired into and the In charge, Economic Offences Wing, has categorically concluded that the offences punishable u/ss 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC have been committed by the accused. The investigation was verified by the Superintendent of Police. Consequently, CRM No. M-41441 of 2012 (O&M) 4 the present criminal case was registered against the petitioner-accused, vide FIR (Annexure P2).
7. It cannot possibly be denied that tendency and frequency of cheating & misappropriation of huge amount of innocent persons by such property dealers, have been tremendously increasing day by day leaving the people in lurch. Taking into consideration the seriousness of allegations of heinous offences, to me, the custodial interrogation of petitioner is essential to recover the huge amount, forged documents, his involvement in other such scams of fraud. If he is allowed the benefit of anticipatory bail, then, the recovery of huge amount and forged documents is not possible, which would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution and police will be deprived from recovering the same from the accused. Moreover, it is now well settled principle of law that the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest, recovery of huge amount and forged documents from the accused and investigation by the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. At the same time, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby.
8. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition filed by the CRM No. M-41441 of 2012 (O&M) 5 petitioner is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
9. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition in this relevant direction.
15.1.2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge