Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 13 February, 2014
Author: M.M.S. Bedi
Bench: M.M.S. Bedi
CRM-M-44289-2013 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Decided on: February 13, 2014.
(1) CRM-M-44289-2013 (O&M).
Balwinder Singh
..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..... Respondent(s)
***
(2) CRM-M-1896-2014 (O&M).
Kamaljit Singh
..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent(s)
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI
PRESENT Mrs.Baljit Mann, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-44289-2013.
Mr.Rajiv Kataria, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-1896-2014.
Mr.Deepak Garg, AAG., Punjab
Mr.Naveen Batra, Advocate,
for the complainant.
M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL).
This order will dispose of the above noted two petitions i.e., CRM-M-44289-2013 filed by Balwinder Singh and CRM-M-1896-2014 filed by Kamaljit Singh, for the grant of pre-arrest Raj Kumar Arora 1 2014.02.19 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44289-2013 (O&M) bail in a case bearing FIR No.127 dated 15.12.2013, under Sections 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Nurpur Bedi, District Rupnagar, registered at the instance of Sukhwinder Kaur widow of Shri Sukhwinder Pal Singh, alleging that the complainant had got land measuring 2 acres, 2 kanals and 5 marlas along with her son acquired through her in laws whereas the petitioner Balwinder Singh and Kamaljit Singh had got this land transferred in their names by playing a fraud. The land is worth Rs.50 lacs per acre. She was promised that in exchange of her land the petitioners would give her commercial plots and 10 showrooms at Ropar and pay the balance amount. On asking of the petitioners, the complainant had submitted an application before a Court for obtaining permission to sell the land belonging to her son also. After obtaining permission, the petitioners connived and obtained her power of attorney in favour of Kamaljit Singh who transferred the land in the name of his mother and sons. They told the complainant that they would get the sale deed registered in her name and in the name of her son in exchange for the said land. However, when the complainant approached the petitioners for getting the sale deed registered in her name they delayed the matter and did not give her anything despite the fact that land measuring 2 acres, 2 kanals and 5 marlas was worth crores of rupees.
So far as petitioner Kamaljit Singh is concerned, the allegation against him is that he had got the sale deed registered in Raj Kumar Arora 2 2014.02.19 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44289-2013 (O&M) favour of his mother Gurdev Kaur and his sons on 27.3.2010, on the basis of power of attorney executed by the complainant in favour of Kamaljit Singh. She has alleged in the complaint that Balwinder Singh petitioner has got a sale deed registered by her of One Kanal land belonging to her in village Saini Majra in favour of one Dharampal and the amount obtained from said Dharampal has been misappropriated by Balwinder Singh. The possession of the land falling in the name of her son measuring 1 kanal has also been handed over to Dharampal and others and the amount due for the same has also been misappropriated.
So far as Balwinder Singh is concerned, he had also allegedly threatened the complainant at the point of revolver that in case she makes a complaint regarding fraud or physical abuse, he would kill her, her son and other family members. The matter was enquired into by the Superintendent of Police, Rupnagar. A perusal of the proceedings of the police indicates that a compromise was arrived at between the complainant with regard to land measuring 2 acres 5 kanals with her in laws. The compromise was got effected through Balwinder Singh. Balwinder Singh had introduced Kamaljit Singh to the complainant and had taken part in the negotiations for sale of the property of Sukhwinder Kaur. Thereafter, Sukhwinder Kaur had given general power of attorney with regard to property falling to her share in favour of Kamaljit Singh on 8.12.2009. The house in which the complainant is residing at present is the plot Raj Kumar Arora 3 2014.02.19 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44289-2013 (O&M) which she had purchased with her own money and constructed a house. Balwinder Singh has claimed that the said plot had been purchased by him on 11.12.2009 and had constructed the house from the income which he had earned from his business and ancestral land. During enquiry Kamaljit Singh and Balwinder Singh got recorded their statements that Sukhwinder Kaur had given her power of attorney of the land falling in her share on 8.12.2009 and in return thereof she had obtained Rs.32.64 lacs on different dates from Kamaljit Singh. However Kamaljit Singh and Balwinder Singh have not been able to furnish any documentary evidence with regard to payment of Rs.32.64 lacs. They stated that Sukhwinder Kaur had sold the property belonging to her son Darshanpreet Singh after obtaining permission from the Court and in return for said land she had also obtained Rs.3 lacs in cash and a showroom measuring 200 sq. yards near Sahibzada Ajit Singh Academy, Rupnagar. The police recorded that when sale deed was registered in favour of Gurdev Singh, the money for sale deed executed by Sukhwinder Kaur was paid to the mother of Kamaljit Singh whereas at present market price of 1 acre land situated in the area is much more than the price of the plot measuring 200 sq. yards situated in Rupnagar which had been transferred in the name of his son by Kamaljit Singh.
Learned counsel for petitioner Balwinder Singh Mrs.Baljit Mann, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case with mala fide intentions. In Raj Kumar Arora 4 2014.02.19 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44289-2013 (O&M) order to doubt the credibility of the complainant, attention of the Court has been drawn to the driving licence of the complainant in which she has been shown as wife of Balwinder Singh. Adhar Card has been produced on the record indicating that she has shown herself as wife of Balwinder Singh on 15.6.2013. As per Anneuxre P7 issued by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala, her status has been shown as wife of Balwinder Singh. It has been argued that the complainant in order to cover her misdeeds has also filed a complaint against petitioner Balwinder Singh under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that Balwinder Singh had been raping her with a promise to marry her. It has been argued that though she has shown her status as wife of Balwinder Singh in various records yet in order to conceal the said fact she lodged a false FIR against the petitioner for offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been argued that it was Balwinder Singh who had supported the complainant and helped her to manage the property but after receiving the benefit she has taken a false stand that she has been duped by Balwinder Singh. It is claimed that petitioner Balwinder Singh has joined investigation pursuant to the interim order and that it is not a case of any recovery. Petitioner Balwinder Singh has neither signed any sale deed or power of attorney nor he is a witness to any document executed by Sukhwinder Kaur and that he has been falsely implicated. It is claimed that it is only Kamaljit Singh who could be said to have misused power of attorney if any but petitioner Raj Kumar Arora 5 2014.02.19 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44289-2013 (O&M) cannot be attributed any role as it was Kamaljit Singh only who had been given power of attorney with regard to her share. It is claimed that the petitioner has been named in the FIR along with Kamaljit Singh to exert pressure on him and his family members so that they will not evict her from their house which has been illegally occupied by the complainant. The petitioner Balwinder Singh claims that the complainant has not been able to explain the source of income from where she has purchased the plot or raised construction. The complainant is an educated post graduate lady whose husband had committed suicide.
It is argued that the complainant has been threatening the petitioner of false involvement in a rape case which she has already done.
Learned counsel for petitioner Kamaljit Singh, Mr.Rajiv Kataria, Advocate has argued that the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioner on account of her grievance against Balwinder Singh who had actually duped the complainant and sexually exploited her. It has been argued that Kamaljit Singh has been named in the FIR as he had settled land deal with complainant through Balwinder Singh and that she used to live with Balwinder Singh in live-in relationship. She has now even lodged FIR under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Nurpur Bedi against Balwinder Singh and has become inimical towards him and has involved Kamaljit Singh also in a false case. The allegation Raj Kumar Arora 6 2014.02.19 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44289-2013 (O&M) against Kamaljit Singh petitioner is that after obtaining power of attorney from the complainant dated 8.12.2009, he got transferred the land in favour of his mother and his sons on 27.3.2010 and that she has not been paid a single penny in exchange for the same. Counsel for the petitioner has also levelled allegations against the character of the complainant alleging that she was responsible for the suicide of her husband in 2008. On account of her discord with her in-laws after death of her husband Sukhwinderpal Singh, she developed illicit relations with Balwinder Singh. Her relationship with Balwinder Singh was not approved by her family members but she started living with Balwinder Singh at Nurpur Bedi. Balwinder Singh had even filed a complaint in the year 2009 to the effect that he had been receiving threats from the parents and the family of the complainant. A panchayati compromise was arrived at between the complainant and Balwinder Singh. A copy of the panchayati compromise dated 23.3.2009 has been placed on record signed by the complainant and Balwinder Singh.
Counsel for petitioner Kamaljit Singh has vehemently urged that the complainant and Balwinder Singh has been living together as husband and wife and the petitioner had purchased the land measuring 1 kanal 3 marlas in the year 2009 for a consideration of Rs.32,64,000/- and paid entire consideration to the complainant. The said deal was settled through Balwinder Singh co- accused. Petitioner Kamaljit Singh claims that he has purchased the Raj Kumar Arora 7 2014.02.19 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44289-2013 (O&M) land for investing money in the property to make profits by selling it further and to save the stamp duty which was to be levied on the sale deed, he had taken power of attorney from the complainant but when the petitioner did not get any suitable customer for the land and there was no hope to get suitable customer, then he got the sale deed executed in the name of his mother and sons on the basis of general power of attorney. The petitioner later on had entered into a deal with Kaushalya Devi widow of Baldev Singh and the petitioner sold the land measuring 1 acre which was purchased from the complainant and the complainant had entered into deal with Kaushalya Devi over the land belonging to her minor son Darshanpreet Singh as guardian. The mother of the petitioner and the complainant both executed one sale deed in favour of Kaushalya Devi on 27.2.2013. It has been argued that the claim of the complainant that she has not received any money for the sale consideration is false.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has argued that both the petitioners have duped the complainant and made her to execute the general power of attorney in the garb of special power of attorney vide document dated 8.12.2009. A copy of the general power of attorney executed by the complainant in favour of the petitioner Kamaljit Singh indicates that the upper portion of the deed indicates that power of attorney has been executed in order to manage the property but in the middle it has been got incorporated that the petitioner Kamaljit Singh will have Raj Kumar Arora 8 2014.02.19 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44289-2013 (O&M) a right of sale.
I have heard the leaned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents carefully at length and gone through the police record and various documents made available by the counsel for the petitioners. It is apparent that both the petitioners-co-accused are attributing criminal liability against each other in order to establish their innocence. It is a fact that the complainant has registered an FIR under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against Balwinder Singh claiming that she had been sexually exploited by the petitioner by developing illicit relations with her on the basis of false promise. Accused Kamaljit Singh has also accused the complainant for the said illicit relations. Kamaljit Singh has not been able to prima facie establish fair use of power of attorney executed by the complainant in his favour. He claims that property had been transferred to him under power of attorney and that on the basis of said power of attorney, he had transferred property of the complainant to his mother and sons. The investigation conducted by the police does not reflect transfer of any sale consideration to the complainant prior to or at the time of transfer of her land through her power of attorney holder. The accusations of both the accused against each other prima facie establish the criminal liability of both the petitioners in connivance with each other. The investigation is at initial stage. Grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners at the present stage will certainly prejudice the fair Raj Kumar Arora 9 2014.02.19 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-44289-2013 (O&M) investigation.
No ground is made out to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Both the petitions are dismissed.
Nothing mentioned in this order will prejudice the rights of the petitioners to seek concession of regular bail. Anything said in this order will not affect the merits of the case.
(M.M.S. BEDI) February 13, 2014. JUDGE rka Raj Kumar Arora 10 2014.02.19 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document