Present:- Mr.A.R. Takkar Advocate Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1153354
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJun-30-2014
AppellantPresent:- Mr.A.R. Takkar Advocate
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm-m-11729 of 2014 decided on: 30.06.2014 sudershan gogia and another ....petitioner(s) versus state of haryana ....respondent(s) coram: hon'ble mr.justice m.m.s.bedi present:- mr.a.r.takkar, advocate for the petitioners.mr.deepak girhotra, aag, haryana. mr.j.s.bedi, sr.advocate with mr.amit chaudhary, advocate for the complainant. m.m.s.bedi, j (oral).this order will dispose of an application for grant of pre arrest bail to petitioners no.1 and 2 in a case registered at the instance of subhash wadhwa alleging that petitioners had entered into an agreement of sale with the complainant on 22.04.2011 on receipt of a sum of rs.1,68,00, 000/- but subsequently the sale deed was not executed as the land had already been acquired. counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that as a matter of fact the petitioners had purchased the property in dispute from original owner shiv nath singh when it stood already acquired without any knowledge about the acquisition proceedings. receipt of rs.1,68,00,000/- by the petitioners appears to be an admitted fact as per various documents including legal notice sent by sharma jyoti petitioners to the complainant, copy of which has been placed on 2014.07.01 16:26 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm-m-11729 of 2014 -2- record as annexure p-5. counsel for the petitioners has made an attempt to convince this court that the earnest money received by the petitioners has been partly returned but perusal of the police records indicates that there is no relevant or admissible evidence in existence till date to support such a fact. the contention, of return of money is thus liable to be rejected. i have also considered the claim of the petitioners that they had also been defrauded by the original owner but the said claim even does not appear to be sufficient enough to justifiy the action of the petitioners in cheating the complainant by persuading the complainant to part with a huge amount of rs.1,68,00, 000/-. no ground is thus made out to grant the concession of pre arrest bail to the petitioners.at this stage. counsel of the petitioners has submitted at this stage that petitioner no.2 is a lady and has not actively participated in any transaction but appears to be a mere signatory on the documents. counsel also submitted that petitioner no.2 is ready to return the amount to some extent. i have considered the said contention and i am of the opinion that in view of the offer given on behalf of petitioner no.2 to discharge the liability to some extent, petitioner no.2 could be granted some relief protecting her from arrest while dismissing the petition on behalf of petitioner no.1. taking into consideration the circumstances that sharma jyoti petitioner no.2 is a lady, ready to discharge liability to some extent, at 2014.07.01 16:26 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm-m-11729 of 2014 -3- this stage, it is deemed appropriate to grant the concession of pre- arrest bail to petitioner no.2-ms.sangeeta rani subject to the condition that she will pay a sum of rs.25,00,000/- to the complainant within a period of three months from today. a sum of rs.10,00,000/- will be paid by petitioner no.2 in firs.two months by 7th of each month and the sum of rs.5,00,000/- will be paid in the third month by the said date. the petition qua petitioner no.2 is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of petitioner no.2 she will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to following conditions:- (i) petitioner no.2 shall join investigation on 7th july, 7th august and 7th september of 2014 and will pay a sum of rs.10,00,000/-, rs.10,00,000/- and rs.5,00,000/- respectively on the said dates to the complainant in presence of the investigating officer, without prejudice to the right of the complainant in any civil or criminal proceedings to recover any amount; (ii)petitioner no.2 will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner; and (iii)petitioner no.2 shall not leave india without permission of the trial court. it is clarified that in case on violation of any of the aforesaid conditions, this petition will be deemed to have been dismissed qua petitioner no.2 also. the payment made by petitioner no.2 shall be adjustable against the claim of complainant in any subsequent civil or criminal proceedings arising out of the agreement of sale in question. sharma jyoti 2014.07.01 16:26 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm-m-11729 of 2014 -4- it is clarified further that nothing mentioned in the above order will prejudice the rights of the parties to be determined in civil or criminal proceedings. the petition qua petitioner no.1 is dismissed. (m.m.s.bedi) 30.06.2014 judge jyoti 1 sharma jyoti 2014.07.01 16:26 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-11729 of 2014 Decided on: 30.06.2014 Sudershan Gogia and another ....Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI Present:- Mr.A.R.Takkar, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Deepak Girhotra, AAG, Haryana.

Mr.J.S.Bedi, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant.

M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL).This order will dispose of an application for grant of pre arrest bail to petitioners No.1 and 2 in a case registered at the instance of Subhash Wadhwa alleging that petitioners had entered into an agreement of sale with the complainant on 22.04.2011 on receipt of a sum of Rs.1,68,00, 000/- but subsequently the sale deed was not executed as the land had already been acquired.

Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that as a matter of fact the petitioners had purchased the property in dispute from original owner Shiv Nath Singh when it stood already acquired without any knowledge about the acquisition proceedings.

Receipt of Rs.1,68,00,000/- by the petitioners appears to be an admitted fact as per various documents including legal notice sent by Sharma Jyoti petitioners to the complainant, copy of which has been placed on 2014.07.01 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-11729 of 2014 -2- record as Annexure P-5.

Counsel for the petitioners has made an attempt to convince this Court that the earnest money received by the petitioners has been partly returned but perusal of the police records indicates that there is no relevant or admissible evidence in existence till date to support such a fact.

The contention, of return of money is thus liable to be rejected.

I have also considered the claim of the petitioners that they had also been defrauded by the original owner but the said claim even does not appear to be sufficient enough to justifiy the action of the petitioners in cheating the complainant by persuading the complainant to part with a huge amount of Rs.1,68,00, 000/-.

No ground is thus made out to grant the concession of pre arrest bail to the petitioneRs.at this stage.

Counsel of the petitioners has submitted at this stage that petitioner No.2 is a lady and has not actively participated in any transaction but appears to be a mere signatory on the documents.

Counsel also submitted that petitioner No.2 is ready to return the amount to some extent.

I have considered the said contention and I am of the opinion that in view of the offer given on behalf of petitioner No.2 to discharge the liability to some extent, petitioner No.2 could be granted some relief protecting her from arrest while dismissing the petition on behalf of petitioner No.1.

Taking into consideration the circumstances that Sharma Jyoti petitioner No.2 is a lady, ready to discharge liability to some extent, at 2014.07.01 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-11729 of 2014 -3- this stage, it is deemed appropriate to grant the concession of pre- arrest bail to petitioner No.2-Ms.Sangeeta Rani subject to the condition that she will pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the complainant within a period of three months from today.

A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- will be paid by petitioner No.2 in fiRs.two months by 7th of each month and the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- will be paid in the third month by the said date.

The petition qua petitioner No.2 is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of petitioner No.2 she will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to following conditions:- (i) Petitioner No.2 shall join investigation on 7th July, 7th August and 7th September of 2014 and will pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- respectively on the said dates to the complainant in presence of the Investigating Officer, without prejudice to the right of the complainant in any civil or criminal proceedings to recover any amount; (ii)Petitioner No.2 will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner; and (iii)Petitioner No.2 shall not leave India without permission of the trial Court.

It is clarified that in case on violation of any of the aforesaid conditions, this petition will be deemed to have been dismissed qua petitioner No.2 also.

The payment made by petitioner No.2 shall be adjustable against the claim of complainant in any subsequent civil or criminal proceedings arising out of the agreement of sale in question.

Sharma Jyoti 2014.07.01 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-11729 of 2014 -4- It is clarified further that nothing mentioned in the above order will prejudice the rights of the parties to be determined in civil or criminal proceedings.

The petition qua petitioner No.1 is dismissed.

(M.M.S.BEDI) 30.06.2014 JUDGE Jyoti 1 Sharma Jyoti 2014.07.01 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh