Gurpreet Kaur v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 18.01.2019 Gurpreet Kaur ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:

Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.99 dated 22.10.2018 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala. Notice of motion.

Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab who is present in the Court accepts notice on behalf of the respondent while Mr. R.S. Jaswal, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the complainant. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the allegations in the FIR, which was got registered by one Kuldeep Singh Cheema, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and other coaccused. The operative part of the FIR is reproduced as under:-

"....To, The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, Subject: Application for taking action and for registering a case against 1) Jang Singh S/o Harbans Singh 2) Gurpreet Kaur W/o Late Gurmukh Singh R/o Village Biradwal, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala 3) Bhinder Singh S/o Labh Singh R/o Jindalpur, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, for doing a land agreement with me and for getting done registry in the name of other party and for defrauding me of Rs. 34,00,000/ -, 78890-73615, Gurpreet Kaur, 73070-06700 (Gianjit Kaur). Sir, it is submitted that I, Kuldeep Singh Cheema S/o Prakash Singh Cheema is resident of Ram Singh Nau (Badson). Tehsil Nabha. District Patiala. That I had done an agreement in respect of land with Jang Singh s/o Harbans Singh s/o S.

Bathu Singh R/o Village Biradwal, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala in respect of 01 acre land situated in Biradwal, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. This land deal was done by me with Jang Singh @ Rs.15,60,000 per acre and a biana of Rs. 3,00,000/ was given and the date of registry was fixed for 15.10.2018 and along with it Bhinder Singh, dealer had taken Rs.1,00,000/- cash on loan from me. The copy of the agreement is enclosed. That I have come to know that aforesaid Jang Singh in connivance with dealer Bhinder Singh S/o Labh Singh, by doing cheating, had sold the aforesaid land to Bhupinder Singh S/o Jarnail Singh R/o H.No. 110-C, Gali No. 1, Bhadson Road, Ranjit Nagar, Tehsil and District Patiala. The copy of the registry is enclosed.

That similarly an agreement was done to buy total land measuring 35 bighe 07 biswe 17 biswasiyan of Gurpreet Kaur W/o Late Gurmukh Singh R/o Village Biradwai, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala's land in the name of myself and my wife Smt. Jagtar Kaur W/o Kuldeep Singh for Rs. 21,50,000/- per acre (@ 96 biswe) and an amount of Rs.

was given as biana and the date of registry was fixed for 20.12.2018. The copy of the agreement is enclosed. But, we came to know in July, 2018 that aforesaid Bhinder Singh, dealer s/o Labh Singh R/o Jindalpur in connivance with Jang Singh s/o Harbans Singh s/o Babu Singh had already got done the registry of the land and despite being said by us repeatedly neither the registry was got done nor the biana was returned. Similarly, Gurpreet Kaur W/o Late Gurmukh Singh R/o Bihadwal presently residing at Lakhmeerwal, Near Sunam, despite doing biana with us, had got done registry to someone else. In this deal also Bhinder Singh dealer was involved. When I came to know in this regard then I had shouted on which dealer Bhinder Singh had given me 02 cheques of Rs. 22/22 lakhs and one cheque of Rs.

1,00,000/- of HDFC Bank and had said that I had promised to give the profit to you, therefore, I am giving you Rs.45 lakhs instead of Rs. 34 lakhs. I had got deposited the cheques given by Bhinder Singh, dealer in my account which got bounced and the bank receipt is enclosed. When we had asked Gurpreet Kaur W/o Late Gurmukh Singh and her mother Gianjit Kaur presently resident of Lakhmiwala to return the money then she had got written an agreement on 17.09.2018 for returning our money that she will give Rs.30 lakhs upto 27.09.2018 (copy enclosed). The above mentioned Jang Singh, Gurpreet Kaur and dealer Bhinder Singh had defrauded me in connivance with each other. Now the aforesaid persons are neither returning my money and nor they are getting done registry in my name.

That it is requested by presenting this application that appropriate legal proceedings may be undertaken against above mentioned accused and a case may be got registered with regard to this cheating and my money may be got returned to me by canceling the registry...."

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that, in fact, the alleged agreement to sell with the complainant is a forged document and the petitioner never entered into an agreement to sell with the complainant. It is further submitted that from the bare comparison of the signatures of the complainant, on the agreement dated 21.02.2018 and the sale deed dated 14.06.2018, it can be made out that the same do not tally with each other. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that in the agreement to sell, it is mentioned that 02 cheques bearing No.5376 and No.5377 were issued by the complainant, however, the same were never presented in the account of the petitioner and later on, as against the settled earnest money of Rs.30 lacs, the complainant transferred an amount of Rs.20 lacs by way of RTGS and paid another amount of Rs.

10 lacs in cash. It is further submitted that out of the said amount received by way of RTGS, an amount of Rs.15 lacs was transferred in favour of co-accused Dalbir Kaur by way of issuance of 02 cheques of Rs.9 lacs and Rs.6 lacs, respectively. It is further stated that the co-accused Dalbir Kaur is wife of one Bhinder Singh through whom the petitioner has entered into a deal to sell the land and it is Bhinder Singh, who has manipulated the 02 agreements i.e. one with Jang Singh and second with the complainant and in fact, the petitioner as against the sale deed executed by her in favour of a third person has received only Rs.78 lacs, details of which has been given in the petition.

Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner has not committed any offence and everything has been manipulated by the co-accused Bhinder Singh, who was dealing with

the complainant as well as Jang Singh and the purchaser to whom the petitioner has sold the land and the petitioner being a lady was not aware of the conduct of Bhinder Singh. It is also submitted that anticipatory bail of co-accused Dalbir Kaur has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 11.01.2019 passed in CRM-M No.64715 of 2018.

In reply, counsel for the State, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, assisted by counsel for the complainant has, however, opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that after receiving an amount of Rs.30 lacs as earnest money, out of which Rs.20 lacs was paid by way of RTGS in the account of the petitioner and the remaining amount was paid in cash, the petitioner has not only backed out from the agreement but, has knowingly and intentionally in order to cheat the complainant sold the said property in favour of third person and has obtained an amount of Rs.78 lacs. It is further submitted by counsel for the State that the case of Dalbir Kaur is on a different footing as she was neither signatory nor an attesting witness in the agreement to sell and the payment of Rs.

15 lacs by the petitioner to the said Dalbir Kaur, is not proved to be outcome of the disputed agreement to sell or the sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of a third person. Counsel for the State has further submitted that despite receiving the earnest money from the complainant, the petitioner has sold the land in favour of a third person knowingly and with clear intention to cheat the complainant and has backed out from the agreement to sell by allegeing that she is not the signatory of the same.

after registration of the sale deed by the petitioner in favour of a third person, the mother of the petitioner namely Gianjit Kaur had further made an agreement with the complainant that she will refused the payment of Rs.30 lacs to the complainant on or before 27.09.2018, which show that the complainant has received the aforesaid amount of Rs.30 lacs as earnest money from the complainant but both the petitioner or her mother Gianjit Kaur have failed to return the aforesaid amount and thus, the intention to cheat the complainant, right from the day when the agreement to sell was executed and an amount of Rs.30 lacs was taken from the complainant by inducing him that the petitioner intend to sell her property in his name, is apparent, which was later on she sold land to a third person without returning the aforesaid amount of Rs.30 lacs to the complainant.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The co-accused of the petitioner Dalbir Kaur was granted anticipatory bail, by this Court noticing the fact that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the said Dalbir Kaur and as per the FIR, he has no dealing with her. However, considering the fact that there are serious allegations against the petitioner that she has received an amount of Rs.30 lacs, out of which Rs.20 lacs was received in her account by way of RTGS from the complainant, as she induced the complainant to part away his money to sell her land which, in fact, she has sold to a third person and never returned the amount back to the complainant. Moreover, despite assurance given by her mother to return Rs.30 lacs to the complainant, by 27.09.2018, both have further backed out.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) JUDGE 18.01.2019 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No