Judgment:
Criminal Misc.
not M-3283 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION :
18. 3.2013 1.
Criminal Misc.
not M-3283 of 2013 Vanita Goyal v.
State of Punjab and another.”
2. Criminal Misc.
not M-4317 of 2013 Venus Goyal and another v.
State of Punjab and another.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri V.M.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Premjit Singh Hundal, A.A.G.Punjab.
Shri S.S.Behl, Advocate for the complainant.
Ms.Madhu Dayal, Advocate for respondent-2.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
This order will dispose of Cr.M.Nos.M-3283 and 4317 of 2013 wherein a prayer for bail in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C.has been made.
The petitioners have been accused of selling off the properties which they had mortgaged with the Bank for a considerable amount running into crores of rupees.
On the strength of misrepresentation they sold the properties to one Pawan Kumar Joshi and Mrs.Jyoti Joshi and extracted sale consideration from Criminal Misc.
not M-3283 of 2013 -2- them.
Initially, the possession was given to the vendees but restored to the Bank latr on.
The petitioners owe an amount of more than 7 crores to the Bank.
The petitioners had also fraudulently obtained affidavits from the purchasers of the property binding them down to the clearance of the entire loan liability to the Bank.
One of the petitioners namely Vanita Goyal then filed a suit for mandatory injunction where the purchasers namely Pawan Kumar Joshi and Jyoti Joshi were arrayed as defendants and a prayer was made that they be directed to pay the outstanding amount along with interest and incidental charges in C.C.Account No.3049328619.
At another point of time, the petitioners issued two cheques to the purchasers of the property for an amount of Rs.5 lac each which were dishonoured and regarding which separate complaints have been preferred under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by the vendee.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that an amount of one crore has been paid to the Bank and the petitiones are willing to settle the remaining amount with them and in fact, an offer for one-time settlement has also been made wherein the petitioners are obliged to pay Rs.6.8 crores to the Bank as a measure of settlement.
The prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant and the State as also the counsel for the purchasers of the property who have given the backdrop of the details resulting in sale of properties which were mortgaged ; the extraction of money from the purchasers ; the procuring of affidavits obliging the purchasers to satisfy the liability of loan created by the petitioners and the civil suit filed by one of the petitioners namely Vanita Goyal seeking a mandate from the Court to the purchasers of the property to satisfy this amount of loan.
All these facts which have been disclosed by the complainant and the counsel for the respondents indicate a very deceitful web created by the petitioners Criminal Misc.
not M-3283 of 2013 -3- in order to defraud the Bank as also the subsequent purchasers and to extract the amounts from them in a wrongful manner.
Having considered the conduct of the petitioners and noticing the flagrant abuse of the arrangement with the Bank intentionally by the petitioners and also noticing the clandestine manner resorted to by them to sell off the properties in order to derive an undue advantage to themselves to the detriment of the Bank, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have discredited themselves sufficiently so as to exclude them from the process of consideration of a relief which is based on equity.
No ground therefore, is made out to grant the prayer made by the petitioneRs.Dismissed.
(MAHESH GROVER) March 18, 2013 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER?.
YES/NO