Jaspal Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M 8890/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:10/05/2016.

Jaspal Singh ............Petitioner vs State of Punjab .............Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Kirat Singh Sidhu,DAG Punjab assisted by SI Diwan Singh Jaswant Singh,J(Oral) Prayer is for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.53 dated 17.2.2016 under Sections 420 IPC, PS City Barnala. Allegations of complainant-Prabhdip Singh are that he has been cheated by the present accused-Jaspal Singh for a sum of Rs.19.89 lacs received vide full and final receipt dated 23.12.2013 (P-3) as total sale consideration for sale of plot measuring 11 marlas pursuant to an agreement to sell dated 30.11.2010 executed between the parties. It is alleged that at the time of execution of agreement to sell on 30.11.2010 an earnest money of Rs.

4 lacs was received and the target date fixed was 29.12.2010. The entire sale consideration was subsequently received vide P-3 and the sale deed could not be executed due to government ban on registration of sale deeds of lands in RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2016.05.

CRM-M 8890/2016 unauthorised colonies. However, petitioner has executed the sale deed qua the land in question in favour of his wife inspite of receipt of full and final payment towards sale consideration. It is contended that registry in the year 2010 is not executed due to complainant party not coming forward to get the sale deed registered. Even suit for specific performance was not filed within three years of the expiry of the target date and a forged and fabricated receipt dated 23.12.2013 (P-3) has been set up to put pressure upon the petitioner to execute the sale deed. Even otherwise the dispute is of civil nature and no criminal offence is made out.

Learned State counsel on instructions submits that it is yet to be adjudicated as to whether full and final receipt (P-3) is a forged receipt or not, however, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had received at least the earnest money for sale and thereafter proceeded to transfer the property in favour of his wife. Thus,prima facie, a clear case of cheating the complainant party is made out. It is submitted that petitioner has evaded joining of investigation whose custodial interrogation is required for deeper probe.

After hearing counsel for the parties, no case for anticipatory bail is made out.

Dismissed.

10.05.2016 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2016.05.10 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document