Cr.Misc. NO.M 33728 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Cr.Misc. NO.M 33728 of 2008
DATE OF DECISION : 4.2.2009
Lakhwinder Singh
......PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Punjab
......RESPONDENTS
PRESENT: Mr. Dharam Kamboj, Advocate
Mr. RS Rawat, AAG, Pb
M.M.S.BEDI,J.
Petitioner Lakhwinder Singh seeks the concession of pre-
arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Mange Ram alleging that
he had agreed to purchase H.No.42 in Gur Nanak Colony, Dhakoli, Tehsil
Dera Bassi vide agreement dated 16.3.2008. The registry was to be
executed on 16.6.2008 but the petitioner did not execute the sale deed on
the pretext that he had taken a loan against the said house. The
complainant got the loan cleared by paying the amount against receipts.
Thereafter, the petitioner allegedly told the complainant that mutation will
be entered in his name after the clearance of the bank and he would get
the registry (sale deed) executed in the name of the complainant.
The petitioner and his wife had allegedly told him to enter into
an agreement of full payment. An agreement of full payment was executed
on 23.6.2008 and the entire amount of sale consideration of Rs.17 lacs in
cash was paid. The petitioner had sold the house to some one else by
Cr.Misc. NO.M 33728 of 2008 2
taking money from him by playing a fraud with the complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
petitioner had always been ready and willing to get the sale deed executed
in favour of the complainant but his brother has sold the house in dispute to
one Dhanpat Rai vide sale deed dated 3.3.2008. The said sale deed had
been challenged before the civil court.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the entire police file. It is apparent from the record that the house in dispute
was originally owned by one Nakul Parshad, who had given General Power
of Attorney to the mother of the petitioner,namely, Surjit Kaur. The
petitioner is an attesting witness of that attorney. Nakul Parshad sold that
house to the petitioners on 8.5.2006 and then the petitioner and his wife
sold the same to complainant Mange Ram but on 31.8.2007 Surjit Kaur,
mother of the petitioner, sold the house in dispute to her another son
Rajinder Singh despite the fact that Nakul Parshad had already sold the
same house to the petitioner. The petitioner had also signed the said sale
deed executed by Surjit Kaur on 31.8.2007 as an attesting witness and on
the basis of the said sale deed Rajinder Singh gave the General Power of
Attorney to one Prem Nath. The said Prem Nath, on the basis of the said
power of attorney sold the property in dispute to Narinder Kumar and
Dhanpat Rai on 3.3.2008 after receiving the sale consideration of Rs.18.00
lacs. The action of the petitioner in witnessing the sale deed regarding
sale of the plot shows his knowledge and conspiracy as the property has
been sold on 31.8.2007 in favour of Rajinder Singh. The complainant prima
facie seems to have been duped by the petitioner. Normally in an ordinary
case of breach of terms of agreement of sale, pre-arrest bail can be
granted but where a person has received the entire sale consideration and
has himself participated in the action of selling the same property, the extra
Cr.Misc. NO.M 33728 of 2008 3
ordinary jurisdiction of granting pre-arrest bail cannot be exercised.
The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner himself seems to have been duped by his family members, is not
tenable at this stage, as such the petition is dismissed.
Nothing said in the order will prejudice the right of the
petitioner to seek the concession of regular bail.
February 4 ,2008 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE