Criminal Misc. No. M-28996 of 2009 [ 1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-28996 of 2009(O&M)
Date of decision: 4.11.2009
Shiv Dayal
.. Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.
..
Rajesh Bindal J.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he had raised loan from
the Bank of Maharashtra by mortgaging his land which, as per the allegations in
the FIR, had already been agreed to be sold by the petitioner to Amarjeet Singh.
The agreement to sell is said to be dated 25.10.2005. The loan was raised by the
petitioner from the bank on 5.9.2006. The loan was in the form of Kissan Credit
Card which, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, was to be finally
adjusted in September, 2009. Prior to the final date of adjustment of the loan, the
bank lodged the FIR against the petitioner on 5.6.2009 with the allegation that
after the mortgage of the property with the bank as security for the loan, the
petitioner executed an agreement to sell which was ante-dated.
It was submitted that in the suit filed by Amarjeet Singh seeking
specific performance of alleged agreement to sell, the petitioner had put in
appearance and denied execution of the agreement. It was much prior to the
registration of the FIR against the petitioner by the bank. In the written statement
filed in that case, the petitioner admitted the factum of loan raised from the
complainant-bank against the property in dispute. It was further submitted that the
petitioner has already cleared the entire loan amount of the bank and No Due
Certificate has been issued in his favour. Even the entry in the revenue record
regarding mortgage of the property also stands removed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the
fact that the petitioner had mortgaged the land to raise loan from the bank, which
Criminal Misc. No. M-28996 of 2009 [ 2]
was already agreed to be sold, clearly shows the intention of the petitioner from the
very beginning and for that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact
that the petitioner has already cleared the loan raised from the bank by mortgaging
the property, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required
at this stage. Accordingly, it is directed that in case the petitioner is sought to be
arrested, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/
Investigating Officer. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and
when called upon for investigation. He shall also be bound by all the conditions as
contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
The petition stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
4.11.2009
mk