In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
CRM M 13003 of 2009 (O&M)
Decided on July 21,2009.
Randeep Kaur -- Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab --Respondent.
Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma,Advocate,for the petitioner
Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG,Punjab.
Mr.P.S.Hundal,Commandant/husband of complainant
in person.
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J:
The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’) in a case,
registered vide FIR No.365 dated 01.7.2008, under Sections
419/420/465/467/468/471/120-B IPC, at Police Station, Civil Lines,
Amritsar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Mohinder
Singh had five children, namely Kanwal Nain Singh, (husband of the
petitioner), Harbir Kaur (complainant) Sukhbir Kaur, Varinder Kaur and
Harjit Kaur. All the children are married. Mohinder Singh in December
1973 left behind 47 kanals 12 marlas of land situated in village Khabe,
Dogran, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran, which is jointly owned by aforesaid
son and daughters of late Mohinder Singh. Kanwal Nain Singh (husband of
the petitioner) aged about 80 years executed a registered power of attorney
in respect of his share in the land aforesaid. The petitioner was approached
by one Gurinder Singh,Patwari and her own nephew Apinderjit Singh @
CRM M 13003 of 2009 (O&M) -2-
Babi son of Iqbal Singh (her elder brother-in-law) to sell her land situated in
village Khabe Dogran, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran as she is permanent
resident of Tehsil Karanpur, District Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan. The
petitioner executed a sale deed dated 16.5.2008 but did not know that
unpartitioned share of the sister of her husband has also been included by
the said persons. He further submits that since the petitioner came to know
about this fraud committed by Apinderjit Singh @ Babi and Gurinder
Singh Patwari, she made complaint to Deputy Commissioner and
S.S.P,Tarn Taran on 26.6.2008 alleging that she has been paid only Rs.
2,00,000/- and she never wanted to usurp share of sister of her husband.
He further submits that basically, it is a civil dispute in which the
complainant (Harbir Kaur) has already filed a civil suit for declaration for
setting aside the sale deed dated 16.5.2008 on the ground that she is owner
to the extent of 1/5th share in the land which has been sold vide registered
sale deed dated 16.5.2008 to which she was not a party.
Vide order dated 12.5.2009, this Court issued notice and
granted interim bail to the petitioner and in pursuance thereof, the
petitioner has joined the investigation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner filed Crl.Misc. No. 33712 of
2009 in order to place on record copy of plaint in the civil suit filed by
Harbir Kaur, complainant against her sisters and brother including the
petitioner for challenging the sale deed dated 16.5.2008, which was allowed
vide order dated 15.7.2009 and documents were taken on record.
On 12.5.2009, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that
the petitioner has no objection if the sale deed in question is cancelled.
He maintained the said stand and submits that the petitioner will cooperate
CRM M 13003 of 2009 (O&M) -3-
in the civil suit and get the sale deed set aside.
On behalf of the complainant, her husband P.S.Hundal has put
in appearance and has argued that the petitioner has committed fraud,
therefore, bail application should be dismissed.
Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had filed an
application for anticipatory bail in which interim bail was granted by the
trial Court on 24.10.2008, and the petitioner had joined the investigation.
However, vide order dated 18.4.2009, bail application was dismissed by the
trial Court.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and without
commenting on the merits of the case but keeping in view the fact that the
petitioner is 70 years old lady, who herself is alleged to have been duped,
has shown her readiness and willingness to get the sale deed dated
16.5.2008 cancelled. Thus, I find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory
bail. Therefore, the order dated 12.5.2009 is hereby made absolute. The
petitioner is however directed to join investigation as and when called and
shall abide by the provisions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
July 21,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge