Judgment:
CRM not M-33173 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1
Crl.
Misc.
not M- 33173 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: March 1, 2013.
Ranjit Singh .....PETITIONER(s) Versus U.T.Chandigarh .....RESPONDENT (s) 2.
Crl.
Misc.
not M- 33441 of 2012(O&M).Raghbir Singh .....PETITIONER(s) Versus U.T.Chandigarh .....RESPONDENT (s) 3.
Crl.
Misc.
not M- 34114 of 2012(O&M).Jagroop Singh .....PETITIONER(s) Versus U.T.Chandigarh .....RESPONDENT (s) 4.
Crl.
Misc.
not M- 39880 of 2012(O&M).Swaranjit Kaur and another .....PETITIONER(s) Versus U.T.Chandigarh .....RESPONDENT (s) CRM not M-33173 o”
2. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ranjit Saini, Mr.H.S.Dhandi, and Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ajaivir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.Sukant Gupta, Addl.PP, U.T., Chandigarh.
Mr.Ranjan Lohan, Advocate, for the complainant.
***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) This order will dispose of all the aforementioned petitions filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.277 dated 15.06.2012, under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B IPC, registered at police station Sector 34, Chandigarh.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh dismissing bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioneRs.This Court while issuing notice of motion on 18.10.2012 passed the following order in Criminal Misc.
not M-33173 of 2012:- “Crl.M.No.63428 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.not M-33173 of 2012 Contends that dispute, if any, is civil in nature between petitioner and complainant.
It is further submitted that CRM not M-33173 o”
3. complainant, who is a builder at Chandigarh, entered into an agreement to sell property situated at Khanna with petitioner and had received `50 lacs as earnest money, out of which `30 lacs were paid by way of cheque and `20 lacs were paid in cash.
It is further submitted that petitioner had also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the complainant in the Court of competent jurisdiction at Khanna and, however, as the time for execution of sale deed, as per the agreement, had already expired the said suit was withdrawn for filing another suit for specific performance.
However, before that could be done, complainant got present FIR registered against the petitioner at Chandigarh, whereas property is situated at Khanna and the agreement were also executed at Khanna and no part of action has arisen in the jurisdiction of Chandigarh Court.
Notice of motion for 27.11.2012.
However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.”
This Court while issuing notice of motion on 19.10.2012 passed the following order in Criminal Misc.
not M-33441 of 2012:- “Crl.M.Nos.63843-44 of 2012 Both the applications are allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.not M-33441 of 2012 Contends that petitioner is having no concern with the dispute between complainant and co-accused Ranjit Singh, Tejinder Singh and Swaranjit Kaur.
Further submitted that he has CRM not M-33173 o”
4. been named in the FIR on the plea that complainant was having some transaction with the petitioner without specifying the said transaction and that cheques were issued by co-accused Swaranjit Kaur and cash was paid by co-accused Ranjit Singh on account of transaction between complainant and the present petitioner without even specifying the said transaction.
It is further contended that even dispute, if any, between the complainant and the co-accused, is civil in nature and that complainant, who is a builder at Chandigarh entered into an agreement to sell the property situated at Khanna with Co.accused Ranjit Singh and had received `50 lacs as earnest money, out of which `30 lacs were paid by way of cheque and `20 lacs were paid in cash.
It is also contended that co-accused had also filed civil suit for permanent injunction against the complainant in the Court of competent jurisdiction at Khanna and, however, as the time for execution of sale deed, as per the agreement, had already expired, the said suit was withdrawn for filing another suit for specific performance.
Further contended that property is situated at Khanna and that agreement was also executed between co-accused and complainant at Khanna and hence, no part of action has arisen in the jurisdiction of Chandigarh Court.
Notice of motion for 27.11.2012.
However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.To be heard alongwith Crl.M.not M-33173 of 2012.”
This Court while issuing notice of motion on 03.11.2012 passed CRM not M-33173 o”
5. the following order in Criminal Misc.
not M-34114 of 2012:- “Crl.M.No.65128 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.not M-34114 2012 Contends that dispute, if any, is civil in nature between Co.accused Ranjit Singh and the complainant.
It is further submitted that petitioner is only a witness to the agreement executed between co-accused Ranjit Singh and the complainant.
It is further submitted that complainant, who is a builder at Chandigarh, entered into an agreement to sell property situated at Khanna with co-accused and had also received `50 lacs as earnest money, out of which `30 lacs were paid by way of cheque and `20 lacs were paid in cash.
It is also contended that civil suit was also filed by co-accused Ranjit Singh against the complainant in the Court of competent jurisdiction at Khanna and, however, as the time for execution of sale deed, as per the agreement, had already expired the said suit was withdrawn for filing fresh suit for specific performance.
It is also contended that property is situated at Khanna and the agreement was also executed at Khanna and hence, no part of action has arisen in the jurisdiction of Chandigarh Court.
It is also contended that on similar facts, co-accused Raghbir Singh and Ranjit Singh have already been granted interim bail by this Court vide orders dated 19.10.2012 and 18.10.2012 passed in Crl.M.Nos.33441 and 33173 of 2012 respectively.
Notice of motion for 27.11.2012.
However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.CRM not M-33173 o”
6. To be heard alongwith Crl.M.not M-33173 of 2012.”
This Court while issuing notice of motion on 18.12.2012 passed the following order in Criminal Misc.
not M-39880 of 2012:- “Crl.M.No.75737 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.not M-39880 of 2012 Contends that dispute, if any, is civil in nature between petitioner no.1 and co-accused Ranjit Singh, Tejinder Singh and the complainant.
It is further submitted that complainant who is a builder at Chandigarh entered into an agreement to sell the property situated at Khanna with petitioner no.1 Swaranjit Kaur and co-accused Ranjit Singh etc.and had received `50 lacs as earnest money, out of which `30 lacs were paid by way of cheque and `20 lacs were paid in cash.
Further submitted that petitioner no.1 alongwith co-accused had also filed civil suit for permanent injunction against the complainant in the Court of competent jurisdiction at Khanna, and, however, as the time for execution of sale deed, as per the agreement, had already expired, the said suit was withdrawn for filing another suit for specific performance.
Further submitted that however before that could be done complainant got registered FIR against petitioners at Chandigarh, whereas property is situated at Khanna and agreements were also executed at Khanna and hence, no cause of action has arisen in the jurisdiction of Chandigarh Court.
Further submitted that on similar facts, co-accused have already been granted interim bail by this Court vide orders dated 18.10.2012, 19.10.2012 and 3.11.2012 passed in Crl.M.Nos.M- 33173, 33441 and 34114 of 2012 respectively.
Notice of motion for 24.1.2013.
CRM not M-33173 o”
7. However, in the meantime, petitioners are directed to join the investigation and in case they are arrested, they shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.To be heard alongwith Crl.M.Nos.33173, 33441 and 34114 of 2012.”
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have already joined the investigation pursuant to said orders dated 18.10.2012, 19.10.2012, 03.11.2012 and 18.12.2012.
It has been stated by learned counsel for respondent-U.T.that petitioners have joined the investigation.
However, bail applications have been opposed on the plea that matter is still under investigation and that petitioners are not cooperating.
Bail applications have also been opposed by learned counsel for complainant.
However, it has been contended by learned counsel for petitioners-accused that dispute, if any, is civil in nature and that courts at Chandigarh are having no jurisdiction in the matter as the land, in dispute, is situated at Khanna.
It is further contended that agreement was allegedly executed at Khanna and that civil suit was filed at Khanna in which notice was issued to the complainant.
Hence, it is contended that merely on the ground that he received summons of civil suit at Chandigarh, it cannot be said that courts at Chandigarh or police at Chandigarh are having jurisdiction in this matter.
It is further submitted that though agreement was totally denied by complainant however, as per the statement of account of Swaranjit CRM not M-33173 o”
8. Kaur, one of the petitioneRs.the amount mentioned in both the cheques has gone to the account of complainant.
There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioners are likely to abscond or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.
Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail applications filed on behalf of Ranjit Singh, Raghbir Singh, Jagroop Singh, Swaranjit Kaur and Gurdev Singh are accepted and orders dated 18.10.2012, 19.10.2012, 03.11.2012 and 18.12.2012 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioners are, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.All the petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) March 1, 2013.
JUDGE ‘om’