Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dhiraj Singh vs State Of Haryana on 3 February, 2026
CRM-M-308-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
204
CRM-M-308-2026 (O&M).
Date of decision: 03.02.2026.
DHIRAJ SINGH
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Satish Saini, Advocate, and
Mr. Sandeep Vashisht, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Chhavi Sharma, AAG, Haryana assisted by
Inspector Ranbir Singh.
Mr. Suni Sihag, Advocate,
for the complainant.
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.585 dated 27.12.2024, under Section(s) 3(5), 329(4) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, (Section 61, 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the BNS, 2023 added later on), registered at Police Station Dabua, District Faridabad.
1 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 20:40:02 :::
CRM-M-308-2026 (O&M) -2-
2. Mr. Sunil Sihag, Advocate, has filed power of attorney on behalf of the complainant.
3. The First Information Report was registered on statement of the complainant, Vinod Maheshwari, son of Shri Makhan Lal. The complainant stated that a parcel of land measuring 1210 square yards (2-0), situated at Dabua, Tehsil and District Faridabad, was originally owned by Jagbir, son of Shri Bhoole Ram. The said land was purchased from Jagbir by Devnath, son of Shri Banjarangi Lal, resident of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Nagar, Faridabad, on 23.01.1998, vide Wasika No. 6102. Thereafter, the land changed hands on multiple occasions: it was purchased from Devnath by Om Prakash, son of Shri Girwar Yadav, resident of Village Chandawali, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad, on 22.09.1999; subsequently, Om Prakash sold the land to Naresh Pal Singh, son of Shri Harish Chand, resident of Sector-16, Azad OF Colony, Faridabad, on 26.06.2001. It is further stated that mutation in respect of the said land was ultimately entered on 22.12.2008. Thereafter, the complainant himself purchased the land from Naresh Pal Singh on 22.07.2024 and claims to have become the lawful owner and occupant of the said property from the said date. According to the complainant, the agricultural owner of the land had earlier left a portion of land for passage; however, the Tehsildar subsequently set aside the mutation on the ground of deficiency of land in two registries. It is alleged that certain persons intended to encroach upon and take over the complainant's land by entering into fraudulent agreements with respect to the remaining land earmarked for passage. It is asserted that the land earmarked for passage had already been merged and an agreement to sell in respect thereof was executed in the year 2 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 20:40:02 ::: CRM-M-308-2026 (O&M) -3- 2024 in favour of Om Dev Bhadana, son of Shri Hem Chand, resident of Village Pawta, Tehsil Dhauj, District Faridabad. It is further alleged that money had earlier also been taken from another entity for the same land approximately two years prior. The complainant claims to be in physical possession of the land, supported by videographic evidence. It is alleged that the agricultural owner, in connivance with Om Dev Bhadana, forcibly dispossessed the complainant from the land, despite he being the lawful owner and occupant since 22.07.2024 and also took possession of the goods kept by him on the said land. It is further alleged that threats were extended to the complainant, endangering his life and property. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the complainant sought protection of his property, family and life and liberty and prayed for appropriate legal action to be taken against the persons alleged to be involved in the said acts.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He has not been named in the FIR for having committed any offence and no cognizable offence is made out against him. He further contends that the allegations essentially disclose a dispute of a civil character, which has been clothed with criminality just to pressurize the petitioner. It is submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner, as surfaced from a plain reading of the FIR is that, being a co-owner of the land in question, he had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the co-accused, Om Dev Bhadana (petitioner in CRM-M-72962-2025).
5. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, on 27.12.2024, the complainant submitted the aforesaid complaint giving 3 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 20:40:02 ::: CRM-M-308-2026 (O&M) -4- specific description to the effect that one Jagbir son of Bhule Ram was the owner of land measuring 1210 sq. yards i.e. two kanals situated within the revenue estate of Dabua, Tehsil and District Faridabad. Learned counsel submits that, notwithstanding the said factual position, the complainant has claimed that he had purchased the land from Jagbir, son of Bhule Ram, vide a registered sale deed bearing Vasika No. 6102 dated 23.01.1998. It is further pointed out that Om Parkash son of Girvar Yadav had purchased the said land from Dev Nath on 22.09.1999 whereupon Naresh Pal son of Harish Chand became the owner of the land upon its purchase from Om Parkash on 26.06.2001.
6. It is further submitted that, on the basis of the aforesaid transactions, a mutation in respect of the land in question was sanctioned in favour of Naresh Pal Singh on 22.12.2008. The complainant thereafter purchased the said property from Naresh Pal on 22.07.2024. It is contended that the original land owners had left a portion of the land for the purpose of passage. However, the Tehsildar subsequently cancelled the mutations pertaining to the said agricultural land on the ground of no balance land. It is submitted that the original owners thereafter entered into an agreement to sell with Om Dev Bhadana son of Hem Chand and received money in respect thereof, which transaction ultimately led to registration of the FIR. The FIR was investigated and noticing that the dispute was pre-dominantly civil in nature, a cancellation was recommended by the Investigating Officer.
7. It is submitted that Smt. Neeru Arya, who is the neighbour of the petitioner, had filed a civil suit No.2326 of 2024 against the complainant, which is pending adjudication before the learned Civil Judge (Junior 4 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 20:40:02 ::: CRM-M-308-2026 (O&M) -5- Division), Faridabad and that another civil suit has also been filed by Om Dev Bhadana bearing no. 245 of 2025 and titled as Om Dev Bhadana and another Vs. Vinod Maheshwari, which is also pending consideration. In the said proceedings, the Civil Court has passed an order of restraint against the complainant vide order dated 31.01.2025. It is contended that it was in the backdrop of the aforesaid pending civil litigation that the Investigating Officer rightly prepared a cancellation report and submitted the same before the higher authorities. Learned counsel further submits that apart from the dispute being pre-dominantly civil in nature, the same is based on documentary evidence for which custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. He thus prays that the concession of pre-arrest bail be extended in favour of the petitioner.
8. A status report by way of an affidavit of Vinod Kumar, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Badkhal, Faridabad on behalf of the respondent State has been filed. State counsel, referring to the documents on instructions from and with the assistance of the Investigating Officer Inspector Ranbir and counsel for the respondent-complainant, has furnished details of the entire property and the way in which the same has been alienated so as to explain as to whether the petitioner Dhiraj Singh had any subsisting right over the land in question as on the date on which the agreement to sell is claimed to have been executed in favour of Om Dev Bhadana i.e. on 08.04.2024. The table is extracted as under: -
5 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 20:40:02 ::: CRM-M-308-2026 (O&M) -6-
9. State counsel contends that, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner Dhiraj Singh had already transferred his entire land by way of a general power of attorney executed in favour of Swarn Kumar on 21.08.2001, which was further transferred in favour of Annpurna Gupta vide document bearing No.5715 dated 03.11.2001, the petitioner nonetheless proceeded to execute another GPA on 27.01.2007 in favour of Giriraj along with Jagbir Singh for an area measuring 16 marlas. It is submitted that on the strength of the said GPA, a further GPA came to be executed in favour of Ram Singh, culminating in the execution of a sale deed in favour of Kiran Mehta vide registry No.l4578 dated 15.09.2008 qua which the mutation has already been declined by the revenue authorities.
10. Learned State counsel further submits that, despite the aforesaid sequence of transactions, the petitioner herein executed a subsequent agreement in favour of Om Dev Bhadana, who has thereafter instituted Civil Suit No.245 of 2025 in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Bhadana so as to 6 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 20:40:02 ::: CRM-M-308-2026 (O&M) -7- deceive the complainant, Vinod Maheshwari, who had purchased the property from Jagbir vide full and final agreement dated 27.07.2024. He submits that notwithstanding the execution of the said full and final agreement, a further agreement in favour of Om Dev Bhadana was executed on 23.09.2024 by preparing documents and recording entries in the register of the Notary Public, which entries are alleged to have been subsequently interpolated. The petitioner actively participated along with co-accused Arvind Kumar, in the forgery of the said documents and, by doing so, created a maze of civil proceedings so as to cause prejudice to the substantive rights of complainant Vinod Maheshwari.
11. State counsel further submits that the petitioner, despite being aware of the fact that he had no subsisting right in the land in question and notwithstanding having received the entire sale consideration and having executed a GPA in favour of the subsequent transferees, the petitioner took undue advantage of the mutation entries which had till then not been sanctioned in favour of subsequent purchasers and thus attempted to forcibly take possession of the land. It is further submitted that the petitioner along with other co-accused has not only indulged in the preparation of false and fabricated documents but also trespassed upon the property which already stood transferred in favour of Vinod Maheshwari.
12. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have gone through the documents that have appended along with the present petition as well as with the reply filed by the respondent-State.
13. The undisputed facts, as emerging from the record, are to the effect that Bhule Ram-predecessor of the petitioner herein was the owner of 7 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 20:40:02 ::: CRM-M-308-2026 (O&M) -8- 14 kanals and 9½ marlas of land. Pursuant to his demise, the land was divided equally amongst the six LRs namely Jagveer, Dheeraj, Jagat, Jagmali, Sheela and Dhanno to the extent of 2 kanals 8 marlas each. Out of the aforesaid share, Jagveer executed a GPA No.6102 dated 23.01.1998 in respect of land measuring 2 kanals 8 marlas in favour of Dev Nath. A subsequent GPA was thereafter executed by Dev Nath in favour of Om Parkash vide GPA N.0482 dated 22.09.1999 regarding two kanals of land followed by transfer of the said land in favour of Naresh Pal vide Registry No.3115 dated 15.03.2001 from whom the complainant Vinod Maheshwari entered into a full and final payment agreement in respect of the said land vide GPA No. 2024/23/IV/1206 dated 22.07.2024. In view of the aforesaid transactions, it emerges that Jagveer, after executing the General Power of Attorney and after the culmination of the transaction through a full and final payment agreement in respect of the said land, was left with only an area measuring 8 marlas to his credit.
14. In so far as petitioner Dhiraj Singh is concerned, he succeeded to a share of 2 kanals 9 marlas qua which he executed GPA No.15651 dated 21.08.2001 in favour of Swarn Kumar. A registered sale deed was thereafter executed by Swarn Kumar in favour of Annpurna Gupta for an area measuring 2 kanals 1 marla vide registry No.5715 dated 03.11.2001 and the corresponding mutation was also sanctioned in favour of the said transferee. It is thus evident that even if an extended benefit is to be given to the petitioner Dhiraj Singh by proceeding on the assumption that execution of a GPA does not, by itself, convey title, the remaining land to the credit of the petitioner, Dhiraj Singh, would be only to the extent of 7 marlas. As regards the other 8 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 20:40:02 ::: CRM-M-308-2026 (O&M) -9- four LRs namely Jagat and his successors, Jagmali, Sheela and Dhanno who were owners to the extent of 2 kanals 08 marlas each, it is borne out from the record that they executed a General Power of Attorney bearing No. 4539 dated 07.03.2003 in favour of Giriraj Singh, son of Jagmal Singh. On the strength of the said General Power of Attorney, Giriraj Singh executed a registered sale deed bearing No. 5792 dated 17.08.2004 in respect of land measuring 6 kanals in favour of Ajit Singh and Harjit Singh. He further executed another sale deed vide Registry No. 6988 dated 14.09.2004 concerning land measuring 2 kanals and 2 marlas in favour of Jitendra Singh, son of Himmat Singh. Mutations pursuant to the aforesaid sale deeds were also duly sanctioned. Thus, out of the total area measuring 9 kanals 13 marlas qua which GPA No.4539 had been issued in favour of Giriraj Singh, he alienated an area measuring 08 kanals 02 marlas. The balance area which thus remained as per the GPA's was only to the extent of 1 kanal 11 marlas. Notwithstanding the same, the aforesaid Giriraj claimed an additional benefit of 16 marlas of land on the strength of GPA No.325 dated 27.01.2007 which is stated to have been executed in his favour by Jagveer and the petitioner, Dhiraj Singh.
15. Be that as it may, even if the circumstances are construed in favour of the petitioner, Dhiraj Singh, he could be deemed to have been a principal or owner only to the extent of 7 marlas of land, whereas Jagveer was left with a balance of merely 8 marlas in his share. Hence, any GPA executed by them could, at best, pertain only to 15 marlas of land. If the aforesaid area is considered along with the balance land measuring 1 kanal and 11 marlas, which remained after the alienation of 9 kanals and 13 marlas pursuant to General Power of Attorney No. 4539 dated 07.03.2003, the total area 9 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 20:40:02 ::: CRM-M-308-2026 (O&M) -10- remaining out of the original holding of 14 kanals and 9½ marlas would be only to the extent of 2 kanals and 6 marlas. It further emerges that Giriraj executed another GPA bearing No.501 in favour of Ram Singh on 06.09.2008, to the extent of 16 marlas of land. Thus, even if the most liberal interpretation is extended in favour of Giriraj Singh, the 16 marlas of land in respect of which General Power of Attorney No. 325 dated 27.01.2007 is stated to have been executed would stand nullified by the subsequent General Power of Attorney No. 501 dated 06.09.2008, thereby leaving Giriraj Singh with land measuring only 1 kanal and 11 marlas from the original holding. Thereafter, Giriraj Singh executed a sale deed bearing registration No. 14578 dated 15.09.2008 in favour of Kiran Mehta in respect of the said land.
16. Be that as it may, Giriraj Singh none-the-less proceeded to execute a sale deed vide Registry No.17607 dated 24.10.2008 in favour of Arvind Kumar son of Kanhi Ram for an area measuring 2 kanals 2 marlas. Subsequent thereto, an application was moved before the Circle Revenue Officer seeking sanction of mutation on the basis of the said sale deed. The said application, however, came to be rejected by the Circle Revenue Officer on the ground that the vendors did not possess or hold the area of land in respect of which the sale deed had been executed.
17. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the application for sanction of mutation in favour of Arvind Kumar, an agreement to sell dated 08.04.2024, was executed by Jagveer Singh and the petitioner Dhiraj Singh, along with other co-sharers (apart from Jagmali), in favour of Om Dev Bhadana and the petitioner Arvind Kumar (petitioner in CRM-M-72962-2025 being partner with Om Dev Bhadana) on 08.04.2024. The said agreement to sell had been 10 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 20:40:02 ::: CRM-M-308-2026 (O&M) -11- drawn on full and final payment of Rs.15 lakhs allegedly made by Om Dev Bhadana in favour of the petitioner and the co-accused by way of three cheques of Rs.5 Lakhs each drawn from Account No.221246743662121 in AU Small Finance Bank. During the course of investigation, it transpired that the aforesaid three cheques had been used by Om Dev Bhadana for his personal work regarding which two cheques were encashed by Dharamvir Chaudhary son of Mahendra Kumar son of Late Netram, resident of village Gothra Mohatabad, Pali. The said Dharamvir Chaudhary was joined in investigation and his statement was recorded specifically to the effect that he had business dealings with Om Dev Bhadana and that the cheques in question had been issued by Om Dev Bhadana towards discharge of liabilities arising out of their business transactions. In the aforesaid backdrop, it prima facie emerges that although reference to the said cheques was made in the agreement to sell as constituting payment of sale consideration in respect of the land in question, the declaration to that effect was false and misleading. The material collected during investigation indicates that such recital was incorporated with a malicious intent, so as to prejudice the rights and lawful interests of the respondent-complainant.
18. It was further revealed during investigation that the agreement to sell in question was not a registered instrument, but merely a notarised document, despite the fact that it purported to record payment of a consideration amounting to Rs.15 lakhs. Inasmuch as the value of the transaction exceeded Rs.100/- it was required to be compulsorily registered in the office of the Sub Registrar. The name of the Notary as per the agreement was Vinod Kumar. The said Notary was also joined in the investigation who 11 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 20:40:02 ::: CRM-M-308-2026 (O&M) -12- specifically got recorded his statement to the effect that that a forged seal had been affixed on the agreement and that the signatures appearing thereon were not his. An affidavit in tis regard was duly executed by Vinod Kumar. Co- accused Arvind Kumar was also joined in the investigation as per directions of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 24.10.2025. During the course of inquiry, he was asked to disclose the source wherefrom the stamp papers for the agreement had been purchased. In response, Arvind Kumar disclosed the name of the stamp vendor as R.K. Gupta, whose register was thereafter examined by the investigating agency. Arvind Kumar further made a statement to the effect that he had given Rs.50 Lakhs to the present petitioner Dhiraj Singh for the disputed land out of which Rs.5 Lakhs was paid on 27.09.2024 vide cheque No.10058390 and Rs.6,75,000/- on 05.04.2025 by cheque no.10058395 and the balance amount of Rs.38,25,000/- was claimed to have been paid in cash.
19. The investigation further revealed that petitioner Dhiraj Singh had purchased stamp paper of Rs.100/- and manipulated the record maintained in the register of the stamp vendor by overwriting an existing entry reflecting the sale of a Rs.20/- stamp and backdating the same to 28.04.2024, thus, converting the same into an entry pertaining to a Rs.100 stamp at Serial No. 1178. The said entry was registered in the petitioner's own name. It is further revealed that, on account of the said manipulation, the entries on the concerned page of the stamp vendor's register, wherein a record of the stamp sales is maintained on each page along with a summary at the end of each page indicating the number of stamps left from the previous day. The summary, upon verification, was found to be incorrect due to the erroneous 12 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 20:40:02 ::: CRM-M-308-2026 (O&M) -13- entry and the same did not sum up, thereby prima facie substantiating the allegation of tampering with official records.
20. The chain of events has thus been prima facie linked by referring to all the documentary evidence, which reflects that the petitioner, in connivance with co-accused Arvind Kumar, entered into an agreement to sell with respect to the land in question, in favor of Om Dev Bhadana, notwithstanding the fact that the proprietors had no subsisting land left in their favour and further notwithstanding that co-accused Arvind Kumar was fully aware of the absence of any available land, in view of the fact that his application for sanction of mutation for an area measuring 2 kanals 2 marlas had already been declined by the Circle Revenue Officer way back in the year 2008 itself.
21. The sequence of events noticed hereinabove prima facie discloses that an orchestrated maze of transactions was consciously created by the petitioner, in concert with the co-accused, with an intent to defraud the lawful owners. The sequence of events further establishes that the petitioner and the co-accused were fully aware of the absence of any subsisting right over the property in question, yet, they not only sought to be used as a foundation for instituting civil proceedings, with the ulterior motive of gaining an undue advantage over the respondent-complainant and caused prejudice to the substantive rights of the lawful owners. The mere institution of proceedings before the Civil Court would not be permitted to be operate as a shield against criminal conduct of the petitioner, reflected amply from the record. He, in the facts of this case, cannot claim that a purely civil dispute has been given the colour of a criminal case, rather, the sequence of events 13 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 20:40:02 ::: CRM-M-308-2026 (O&M) -14- establishes that the civil proceedings were in fact instituted by the petitioner along with his co-accused to cover their criminal tracks and to hide the true nature of the fraudulent transactions for claiming protection under the garb of pending civil proceedings.
22. The criminal intent of the petitioner and his co-accused stands duly established by the ways and manners in which they orchestrated the entire transaction and the extent to which they have gone in furtherance of their criminal act and have not hesitated even to institute proceedings before the Civil Court in an attempt to perfect a title, despite being aware that the same is based on fallacious, forged and fabricated documents and agreements. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the petitioner thus does not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail as he is not rubbing on the wrong side of the law by chance or bona fide misunderstanding, rather he has deliberately chosen to enter into the world of orchestrated white colour crime. The present petition is accordingly dismissed.
23. The ancillary issue which arises for consideration of this Court pertains to the transaction of huge sums in cash, claimed to have been made by the different persons in the present case. They have founded their respective entitlement on the basis of such cash transactions. Hence, as high denomination cash transactions are claimed to have been undertaken at different levels, such impermissible cash transactions are required to be reported to the Department of Income Tax for initiation of further action as per law.
24. The Income Tax Act, 1961 places a clear statutory embargo on cash transactions beyond the prescribed monetary threshold and mandates that 14 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 20:40:02 ::: CRM-M-308-2026 (O&M) -15- transactions exceeding the said limit must necessarily be routed through recognised banking channels. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also taken judicial notice of the growing tendency of litigants to set up claims founded on alleged cash transactions, observing that such assertions pose serious difficulties in verification and are inherently susceptible to abuse. In this backdrop, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar and Another, reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 793, has held that wherever a party asserts having entered into cash transactions beyond the statutorily permissible limit, the same warrants reporting to the Income Tax Department for appropriate action in accordance with law.
25. Hence, at this stage, the matter also needs to be brought to the notice of the Income Tax authorities in view of the claim of cash payment made by the petitioner and in the light of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
26. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to send a copy of the order to the Department of Income Tax for enabling an appropriate action under the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
27. The Investigating Officer is, accordingly, directed to furnish the details of all the documents executed on the basis whereof different persons have asserted their respective entitlement on the basis of cash transactions to the Department of Income Tax.
28. The Court is also pleased to record its appreciation for the diligent efforts undertaken by the Investigating Officer Inspector Ranbir Singh in conducting a thorough and effective investigation and assisting this 15 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 20:40:02 ::: CRM-M-308-2026 (O&M) -16- Court to come to the present conclusion. Let a copy of this order be also forwarded to the Director General of Police, Haryana, for his information and record.
February 03, 2026. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
raj arora JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
16 of 16
::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2026 20:40:02 :::