Sombir v. State Of Haryana
!"#
#$%&% ' ( (
) * ( + + +
!
"
#
+ +
, ( -.!/0 % &
$
'() * * $ +
$
,- !.'/
0'0/10%2
'10 %1034- * +
$
+ # + 1 5earned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and he has also fully cooperated with the investigation process and not once but number of times and therefore the order by which he was directed to join investigation dated 15.07.2019 which is more than four years ago, may be made absolute. 3.
The present FIR was lodged on the basis of a complaint made by the
complainant, Indrawati, wife of Jagjit Singh by alleging that the complainant had good terms with the present petitioner Sombir because they were earlier neighbours in the village and thereafter due to the cordial relationship with each other their families always helped each other socially and economically. They were also having many transactions between them from the year 2013 to 2016. On 16.04.2015 there was an open auction by HUDA department for 12 DSS Sector-47. The petitioner stated to the complainant that the shop will be taken up together in the open auction and as per the terms and conditions of the auction, 25% of the total amount has to be deposited within a period of two months. The complainant alleged that she handed over a demand draft amounting to Rs.
39,76,000/- to the petitioner issued from her SBI account in favour of DSS G Sector-47 and the remaining payment of Rs.19,87,299/- was taken by the petitioner from her by way of cash by saying that he will prepare the demand draft from his account. In this way the complainant alleged that she had paid a total amount of Rs.59,63,299/- to the petitioner which was half of the amount relating to her share amount. Thereafter, after passage of time they also had some purchaser with them for further sale of the shop but the petitioner refused to sell the shop by stating that he is the sole owner of the shop. It was further alleged in the FIR that there was also a cash transaction of Rs.2.5 crores out of which the petitioner has returned Rs.35 lacs but refused to pay the remaining amount and thereafter threats were also made.
The allegations therefore in the complaint which led to the lodging of the FIR was that the petitioner has committed a fraud by taking Rs.59,63,299/- but the shop remains in the name of the petitioner only and apart from the above, an allegation of giving of Rs.
been alleged.
4.
The learned senior counsel has argued that undisputedly the present allegations are pertaining to the year 2015 and the present FIR was lodged in the year 2019 after a gap of four years under Section 420 and 120-B IPC and later on the provisions of Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC were added during the course of investigation. He submitted that there was no justification for delay of four years and apart from the above, so far as the document Annexure P-5 which has been attached by the petitioner alongwith the present petition is concerned, the same was obtained by the petitioner through RTI from the HUDA itself regarding which the same has been so averred in paragraph 5 of the present petition as well.
During the course of argument, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has supplied to this Court the aforesaid Annexure P-5 in which the Estate Officer-II, HSVP, Sector-34, Gurugram has attested the same and submitted that this document which is Annexure P-5 has been supplied by the Estate Officer himself through RTI and has attested the same document and therefore the allegations of forgery were unfounded. He further submitted that even otherwise also the complainant has made an allegation that she has given an amount of Rs. 2.5 crores by way of cash to the petitioner for which she has not been able to justify that as to from where she had brought the aforesaid amount of Rs.2.5 crores in cash and therefore the entire allegations against the petitioner are concocted.
He further submitted that be that as it may now the petitioner has already joined the investigation and that also about four years ago. The petitioner deserves the concession of anticipatory bail and has prayed that the order dated 15.07.2019 may be made absolute. 5.
On the other hand, !
"
$
#
has submitted that during the course of investigation, it was also found that the allotment letter dated 26.04.2015 as attached by the petitioner vide Annexure P-5 in the form of photocopy was a fabricated document and in fact as per the original record as possessed by the HUDA, the allotment was made in the name of three persons i.e. the petitioner, his wife and the complainant.
He further submitted that although initially the FIR was registered under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC on the ground of inter se dispute between the parties but thereafter during the course of investigation, it was found that Annexure P-5 attached by the petitioner was not in consonance with the original record of the HUDA department where by on the same date and by the same number that was issued to three persons and not to the petitioner alone whereas as per Annexure P-5, it can be seen that it has been issued to the petitioner only and therefore the provisions of Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC were added later on.
He also submitted on instructions that it is correct that the petitioner has joined investigation but learned State counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that he has not cooperated with the investigation process because he has not supplied the original copy of Annexure P-5 to the investigating agency nor the receipt was supplied by him, therefore the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.
6.
$
$ + $
$
$ +
$
+
$
+ $ $$
+
'10 - * $$$ +
+
'/6 '/) '6% - *
7
+ $
+ ++
+ $
8 3.
$
+
+
+
$
$ ,- +
$ $ 6 -
$
$ )
$
7
+ &*
%.0610%2
7
+ $ + $
$
9 +
$$
+
+
$
:# $$
+
$
$$
+ + &
$ , $
$$+
+
9 +
$
+
; 7
7
$ +
+ $
$
+
:#
2
8 3.
$$
$
$
# + +
$
$$ * $
<
=
+&-&* $ $
$ + :#
+
$$
$
$
%0 & 7
$
$
$
+
$ + $
8 3.
$
$ $$
+ $ + $$
8 3.
$
<
=
&- $
$ $ + + $
+ %%
+$
$ *
+
$ +
$ $ 7
+ & $7
$
$ $
$
$ + $
8 3.$ +
8
3.
+&-
$
<
=
* + +
$ +
$
$
& +
$
$
+ $
+
7
+ +
$$
+ +
7
9
$
$ $
$
$
* ;
$
$$
%.0610%2 $
%1
+
$$
8 $
- + + 0
1/2 ,
>
9 + ?
@! >
$
?
@!