Pardeep Kumar Kaushal v. State Of Haryana

-1In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of Decision: 21.8.2020 Pardeep Kumar Kaushal ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Raja Paramdeep Saini, Advocate for the complainant.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL , J. (ORAL) Case is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 5 dated 07.1.2020, registered under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 IPC, Police Station Chandimandir, District Pandhkula. In the present case, the FIR in question was got registered on the complaint of Usha Singh alleging that on 01.8.2014, she purchased House No. 9 in Tribune Mittar Vihar, Sector-29, Panchkula from Raj Sharma wife of Naresh Sharma but later on the complainant came to know that co-accused Raj Sharma and co-accused Naresh Sharma had taken a loan of Rs. 75,00,000/- from Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. out of which, Rs. 55,00,000/- was still outstanding. It has been further alleged that another letter dated 27.8.2019 was also received from

-2Allahabad Bank, Mohali branch with regard to the default in the loan account. It has also been alleged that a notice dated 10.9.2019 was also received from the Arbitrator appointed by Cholamandalam Finance Company with regard to the loan agreement. Thus, the complainant, being a bonafide purchaser, had been cheated by the petitioner in conspiracy with the other co-accused as they had obtained a loan of Rs. 1,20,00,000/-, on the house purchased by the complainant, which is outstanding and this fact had been concealed from the complainant.

Vide order dated 13.8.2020, the petitioner was granted interim bail as the petitioner and co-accused were ready to resolve the matter with the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that neither the petitioner was named in the present FIR nor he was the seller or witness of the agreement to sell dated 01.8.2014 (Annexure P-2). He further submits that the petitioner has no role to play in the issuance of re-allotment letter and certificate of share dated 2.8.2014 (Annexures P-3 and P-4, respectively). It is also submitted that the petitioner neither stood a guarantor nor signatory or co-applicant in the loan availed by Raj Sharma and Naresh Sharma.

Learned State counsel as well as learned senior counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the present case, FIR has been got lodged by the complainant alleging that she had purchased the house in question from Raj Sharma for a sum of Rs. 1,52,00,000/- and the entire sale consideration was paid and reallotment letter and share certificate of the society were issued by

-3co-accused Harsh Preet Kaushal (brother of the petitioner), being the President of Tribune Mittra Vihar i.e. The Madanpura Cooperative Group Housing Society (Regd.). Raj Sharma, who is the sister of the petitioner, had taken loan from Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company and Allahabad Bank. The house in question had been sold to the complainant despite the fact that the loan was outstanding against the said property. The petitioner and other co-accused, who are closely related to each other, have cheated the complainant. There are allegations of criminal conspiracy, which is ex-facie, from the fact that the house was sold to the complainant, despite the fact of huge outstanding loan against it and the said fact had been kept from the complainant. The petitioner is involved in the criminal conspiracy and is not entitled to any relief of anticipatory bail. The petition is dismissed.

Interim bail granted vide order dated 13.8.2020 stands vacated. (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE August 21, 2020 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No