Present: Mr. R.S.Rai Senior Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1066152
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnDec-13-2012
AppellantPresent: Mr. R.S.Rai Senior Advocate with
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
crl. misc. not m-38668 of 2012 (o&m) -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crl. misc. not m-38668 of 2012 (o&m) date of decision:13. 12.2012. ravi dass verma .......petitioner versus state of haryana .......respondent coram: hon'ble mrs.justice sabina present: mr.r.s.rai, senior advocate with mr.gautam dutt, advocate for the petitioner. **** sabina, j. petitioner has filed this petition under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in fir no.625 dated 29.10.2012 under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506, 120-b of the indian penal code and section 25 of the arms act, 1959, registered at police station gurgaon city, district gurgaon. prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant had agreed to purchase the plot measuring 58.5 square yards from the petitioner for a consideration of ` 15,73,650/-. in this regard ` 2,00,000/- were given to the petitioner towards earnest money on 24.3.2012. the receipt was also issued in this regard by the petitioner. the said deal was executed through vijay kumar sharma who had also attested the receipt as a witness. thereafter, complainant entered into another deal with regard to purchase of another plot. petitioner assured that the plot belonged to his relative measuring 350 square yards bearing khasr.no.565- crl. misc. not m-38668 of 2012 (o&m) -2- 566/45 min. in village basai. shammi alias sudhir had shown the said plot to the complainant at the instance of the petitioner. the deal was settled at ` 81,72,500/-. petitioner directed the complainant to pay ` 35,00,000/- at the house of shammi alias sudhir kumar. believing the assurance, complainant gave ` 35,00,000/- to shammi alias sudhir kumar at his house. the agreement to sell was handed over to the complainant on 8.5.2012. the agreement to sell was signed by the petitioner and shammi alias sudhir as attesting witnesses. on enquiry, it revealed that owner of the plot was in fact gian devi and not hem raj. so far as hem raj was concerned, he had only 67.5 square yards to his share out of the plot in question. complainant had remained present in the office of sub registrar, gurgaon for execution of the sale deed of the plot in question on 6.8.2012 but the accused had failed to turn up for execution of the sale deed. complainant had been made to sign on the receipt of ` 5,00,000/- at the gun point, by shammi. signatures of the husband of the complainant were also taken on the receipt. after hearing the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, i am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. in the present case, the complainant had paid ` 35,00,000/- to co-accused sudhir alias shammi on the assurance of the petitioner. although the complainant paid ` 35,00,000/- to accused sudhir alias shammi with regard to the plot in question but hem raj was not the sole owner of the same. out of the said plot, hem raj was only owner of 67.5 square yards out of crl. misc. not m-38668 of 2012 (o&m) -3- measuring 350 square yards. petitioner might be required for custodial interrogation. dismissed. (sabina) judge december 13, 2012 gurpreet
Judgment:

Crl.

Misc.

not M-38668 of 2012 (O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.

Misc.

not M-38668 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision:

13. 12.2012.

Ravi Dass Verma .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** SABINA, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.625 dated 29.10.2012 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Gurgaon City, District Gurgaon.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant had agreed to purchase the plot measuring 58.5 square yards from the petitioner for a consideration of ` 15,73,650/-.

In this regard ` 2,00,000/- were given to the petitioner towards earnest money on 24.3.2012.

The receipt was also issued in this regard by the petitioner.

The said deal was executed through Vijay Kumar Sharma who had also attested the receipt as a witness.

Thereafter, complainant entered into another deal with regard to purchase of another plot.

Petitioner assured that the plot belonged to his relative measuring 350 square yards bearing khaSr.No.565- Crl.

Misc.

not M-38668 of 2012 (O&M) -2- 566/45 min.

in village Basai.

Shammi alias Sudhir had shown the said plot to the complainant at the instance of the petitioner.

The deal was settled at ` 81,72,500/-.

Petitioner directed the complainant to pay ` 35,00,000/- at the house of Shammi alias Sudhir Kumar.

Believing the assurance, complainant gave ` 35,00,000/- to Shammi alias Sudhir Kumar at his house.

The agreement to sell was handed over to the complainant on 8.5.2012.

The agreement to sell was signed by the petitioner and Shammi alias Sudhir as attesting witnesses.

On enquiry, it revealed that owner of the plot was in fact Gian Devi and not Hem Raj.

So far as Hem Raj was concerned, he had only 67.5 square yards to his share out of the plot in question.

Complainant had remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Gurgaon for execution of the sale deed of the plot in question on 6.8.2012 but the accused had failed to turn up for execution of the sale deed.

Complainant had been made to sign on the receipt of ` 5,00,000/- at the gun point, by Shammi.

Signatures of the husband of the complainant were also taken on the receipt.

After hearing the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.

The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature.

In the present case, the complainant had paid ` 35,00,000/- to co-accused Sudhir alias Shammi on the assurance of the petitioner.

Although the complainant paid ` 35,00,000/- to accused Sudhir alias Shammi with regard to the plot in question but Hem Raj was not the sole owner of the same.

Out of the said plot, Hem Raj was only owner of 67.5 square yards out of Crl.

Misc.

not M-38668 of 2012 (O&M) -3- measuring 350 square yards.

Petitioner might be required for custodial interrogation.

Dismissed.

(SABINA) JUDGE December 13, 2012 Gurpreet