Mohinder Thakur v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-19483 of 2017 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19483 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.1.2018 ...

Mohinder Thakur ................Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan Present: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, Senior DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Abnash Singh, Advocate for the complainant. ...

H. S. Madaan, J.

This petition for pre-arrest bail has been by the petitioner Mohinder Thakur, an accused in FIR No.7 dated 30.1.2016 for offences under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Mataur, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per prosecution version are that complainant Surinder Singh Walia, had submitted a written complaint addressed to SSP, SAS Nagar, Mohali, contending therein that he is a property dealer having his office at Sector 70,

CRM-M-19483 of 2017 -2Mohali. Residence of accused Mohinder Thakur, also working as a property dealer is nearby and that one day he contacted him to discuss about sale of LIG allocation flat. At that time, he was accompanied by his sister Suman Thakur. Both of them wanted to sell one allocation of 4th floor of LIG (one bedroom flat) situated in Sector 60-C, Chandigarh, dully allotted by Chandigarh Housing Board, standing in the name of Inderjit Singh Wajir s/o Amar Singh Wajir, r/o H. No. 2421, Sector 13, Karnal. After 2-3 meetings, the deal was finalized for a sum of Rs. 25 lacs and complainant gave Mohinder Thakur and Suman Thakur the sum of Rs. 25 lacs in cash.

Mohinder Thakur had signed a sale agreement giving original document file to the complainant promising that the written document would be got directly executed in favour of the complainant. However, Mohinder Thakur and Suman Thakur, did not do so. Rather after some time Mohinder Thakur, fled to Canada. When he returned to India, he was sent to jail since he had cheated and defrauded several persons. According to the complainant, he again met Mohinder Thakur, who promised to get the necessary papers executed in his presence but that was not done. Subsequently complainant came to know that Mohinder Thakur and Suman Thakur had sold allocation to someone else receiving the payment from the said purchaser. In that way defrauded the complainant of a sum of Rs.25 lacs.

After registration of the FIR, complainant apprehended his arrest, as such he approached the Court of Sessions by way of filing he petition for pre-arrest bail. However, he was unsuccessful there.

CRM-M-19483 of 2017 -3of filing the petition in hand, which is being opposed by the State. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel, besides going through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature, which has been given the colour of a criminal offence, just to pressurize the petitioner. The petitioner has since joined the investigation and has cooperated therein. Further more, the complainant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the present petitioner and his sister Suman Thakur, based upon the same fact, therefore the FIR is not maintainable. He has prayed that the petition be accepted.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the request vehemently contending that the petitioner has got a shady past, in as much as, he is involved in several criminal cases of cheating and fraud i.e. :-

1. FIR No. 11 dated 13.10.2014 under Sections 420, 506 IPC, Police Station NRI cell, Mohali.

2. FIR No. 61 dated 2.9.2016, Police Station, Sector 49, Chandigarh.

3. FIR No. 147 dated 24.3.2015, under Section 420

4. FIR No. 35 dated 19.11.2014, under Sections 306/34 IPC, GRP Ambala.

Though the petitioner has joined the investigation, but has not cooperated therein, as a matter of fact he has not cooperated in giving his admitted writing and specimen signatures. Therefore, his

CRM-M-19483 of 2017 -4custodial interrogation is required. Under the circumstances, the petition be dismissed.

After hearing the rival contentions, I find that the allegations against the petitioner are quite grave and serious of defrauding the complainant of substantial amount of Rs. 25 lacs. Though he was granted interim bail with a direction to join the investigation, but then as informed by the Sate counsel , he has not rendered full cooperation therein. In addition to that he has got a criminal past. Therefore, for that reason, alone he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail, as custodial interrogation is found to be necessary and essential for complete and effective investigation. If the same is denied to the Investigating Agency, that shall leave many loose ends and gaps, which is uncalled for. As observed in authority State represented by the CBI vs.

Anil Sharma, 1997 (4) RCR (Criminal) 268, custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is on anticipatory bail, in a case like this interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in getting useful information. No ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The petition being without any merit stands dismissed. ( H.S. Madaan ) Judge 19.1.