Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manmohan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 8 August, 2022
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
CRM-M No. 9172 of 2022 -1-
CRM-M No. 13457 of 2022
CRM-M No. 16314 of 2022
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
1. CRM-M No. 9172 of 2022
Date of Decision: 08.8.2022
Manmohan Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ......Respondent
2. CRM-M No. 13457 of 2022
Naushad Malik ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ......Respondent
3. CRM-M No. 16314 of 2022
Ran Singh Sisodia ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
Present: Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-9172-2022).
Mr. Vipan Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Ravi Malhotra, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-13457-2022).
Mr. Ramnish Puri, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-16314-2022).
Mr. Bhupender Beniwal, AAG, Punjab.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)
1. Since all the above three petitions arise from a common FIR, 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 13-08-2022 00:51:17 ::: CRM-M No. 9172 of 2022 -2- CRM-M No. 13457 of 2022 CRM-M No. 16314 of 2022 therefore, all are amenable for a common verdict, being made thereons.
2. Through the instant petitions, cast under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioners crave for indulgence of theirs becoming admitted to anticipatory bail, in respect of FIR bearing No. 040 of 16.1.2022, registered at Police Station Sohana, SAS Nagar, Mohali constituting therein offences under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of the IPC.
3. The victim entered into a contract of sale with one Amrik Singh. The incriminatory role, as assigned to the present petitioners, is that they were brokering a deal with one Amrik Singh. There is no grievance reared by the victim, that Amrik Singh had no lawful title to enter into a contract of sale with him, in respect of the FIR property.
4. The victim is aggrieved from a condition, carried in the contract of sale, executed by him, with one Amrik Singh, which contract of sale became scribed in Punjabi, inasmuch as from it carrying thereins, a condition that Rs. 15 lacs was to be given on 10.11.2021, and, Rs. 20 lacs was to be given on 17.11.2021, and, if not given, thereupon, Rs. 15 lacs would become forfeited, and, the contract of sale would become rescinded. He contests the above condition, on the ground, that it became carried in a document scribed in vernacular, whereas, he was not conversant with the vernacular script, in which the contract of sale was scribed. Consequently, he has nursed a grievance, that the above condition became rather fraudulently, and, without his knowledge, and, against his volition, incorporated in the contract of sale.
5. Initially, if the aggrieved victim was not conversant with Punjabi, he may not have proceeded to put his signature thereons, and if he did so, at this stage, it can be prima facie concluded that he was either conversant with Punjabi, and/or, that only after the entire contents thereof being read over, and, 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 13-08-2022 00:51:18 ::: CRM-M No. 9172 of 2022 -3- CRM-M No. 13457 of 2022 CRM-M No. 16314 of 2022 explained in Hindi, to him, his subscribing his signatures thereons. Even otherwise, he does not deny the entire contents of the contract of sale, but repudiates the above detrimental to him, the above condition, as carried in the contract of sale. In sequel, if he has not, thereupon, upon applying the doctrine of election, rather the forbidding him to deny, or to accept only that condition, which is favourable to him, inasmuch as, his ensuring the execution with him, of the contract of sale by one Amrik Singh, and, his thereafter denying the condition (supra) detrimental to him, hence completely estops him to make the above piecemeal denial, and, or repudiation in part by him of the validly signatured contract of sale, is completely forbidden.
6. Furthermore, since, at this stage, it is to be prima facie concluded, that he was well conversant with Punjabi, thereupon, too, any valid signatures, as made by him thereons, does not permit him to lead any oral evidence or parole evidence, contrary to the admittedly made signatures by him, rather on the contract of sale, as the above oral evidence, or parole evidence, in denial to, or in detraction to his admittedly signaturing the contract of sale, is completely, barred by the provisions of Sections 91, and, 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.
7. Consequently, since, at this stage, the inculpation drawn against the present petitioners, is bereft of truth, as such, this Court becomes constrained to make absolute the orders, as earlier made by this Court, but on the same terms, and, conditions.
8. Consequently, all these petitions are allowed, and, the orders made by this Court on 4.3.2022 (in CRM-M-9172-2022), on 6.4.2022 (in CRM-M-13457-2022), and, on 21.4.2022 (in CRM-M-16314-2022), are made absolute on the same terms and conditions.
9. The afore observations are meant only for the disposal of the 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 13-08-2022 00:51:18 ::: CRM-M No. 9172 of 2022 -4- CRM-M No. 13457 of 2022 CRM-M No. 16314 of 2022 present petitions, and, shall not affect the merits of the trial arising from the FIR (supra).
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
August 08, 2022
Gurpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 13-08-2022 00:51:18 :::