Devender Dungarwal vs State Of Haryana And Another on 20 August, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH




                         Criminal Misc. No. M-20377 of 2009
                         Date of decision : August 20, 2009


Devender Dungarwal                          ....Petitioner
                         versus


State of Haryana and another                ....Respondents


Coram:       Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal


Present :    Mr. Saurabh Khatri, Advocate, for the petitioner

             Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab
             for respondent no. 1

             Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Advocate for respondent no. 2


L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

Devender Dungarwal has filed this petition for anticipatory bail

in criminal complaint instituted by respondent no. 2 against the petitioner

under sections 418, 420 IPC in the court of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Sonepat.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

case file.

According to the complainant’s version, the petitioner-accused

made advertisement of developing of colony styled as Royal City, Indore.

The complainant went to Indore in January, 2006. The petitioner disclosed

that the aforesaid colony stood approved by Indore Development Authority

as well as the Town and Country Planning Department. However, at that

time no deal was entered between the parties. The petitioner regularly
Criminal Misc. No. M-20377 of 2009 -2-

started contacting the complainant thereafter. In March, 2006, the

petitioner came to Sonepat and persuaded the complainant to purchase

50,000 sq. feet area at the rate of Rs 300/- per sq. feet from the petitioner.

The complainant paid Rs 51 lacs as earnest money vide two cheques and

later on in April, 2006 paid another sum of Rs 20 lacs in cash against the

receipt. However, it is turn out that the colony had not been approved by

the Town and Country Planning department and petitioner’s application for

approval of the colony was, in fact, rejected by the Town and Country

Planning department. The petitioner did not even return the aforesaid

amount to the complainant inspite of repeated requests.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that

Indore Development Authority had already issued letter of ‘no objection’ to

the development of the colony. However, admittedly the colony had not

been approved by the Town and Country Planning department by that time.

Huge amount has been paid by the complainant to the petitioner. The

petitioner’s application for approval of the colony has since been rejected by

the Town and Country Planning department and in fact, had never been

approved by the said department.

In view of the aforesaid, no case for extending the concession

of anticipatory bail is made out.

Dismissed but without meaning to express any opinion on the

merits.

                                                      ( L.N. Mittal )
August 20, 2009                                            Judge
  'dalbir'