Paramjit Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 10 October, 2017

Crl. Misc. No. M-17970 of 2017 [ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. No. M-17970 of 2017
Date of Decision : October 10, 2017

Paramjit Singh and others ……………………………………. Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab…………………………………………………….. Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Sahil Puri, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
for the complainant.

LISA GILL, J. (Oral)

The petitioners seek the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR

No.116 dated 25.04.2017 under Sections 323, 354, 447, 452, 506 IPC

registered at Police Station City Kapurthala, District Kapurthala.

As per the allegations in the FIR the complainant agreed to sell

her house to petitioner No.1-Paramjit Singh for a sum of `25 lakhs. A sum

of `50,000/- was paid to the complainant as earnest money. The entire

transaction, it is submitted, was verbal. No written agreement was drawn up.

Remaining balance was to be paid within one month i.e. by 01.11.2016. The

balance payment was not made despite repeated requests by the

complainant. It is further stated in the FIR that when the complainant was

1 of 4
14-10-2017 02:18:32 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-17970 of 2017 [ 2 ]

all alone in her house on 20.04.2017 all the accused persons forcibly entered

her house. They physically assaulted her and used abusive language.

Specific allegations attracting the rigours of Section 354 IPC have been

levelled against petitioner No.1. It is further stated that the petitioners

forcibly took over the possession of her house. The complainant was

rescued on her raising hue and cry by Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Mahinder

Singh and Goldy Bachni. Her husband, in the meantime, returned and

admitted her at Civil Hospital. Above said FIR was registered on the basis

of this statement

At the time of issuance of notice of motion, contentions on

behalf of the petitioners were noted as under:-

“Counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that from

reading of the FIR, it is apparent that there is dispute between

the parties with regard to an agreement of sale qua house

owned by Rajwant Kaur – complainant. It is further submitted

that in the occurrence, one of the petitioners namely Kulvir

Kaur also sustained injuries and her medico legal report is

Annexure P3. It is further submitted that the allegations qua

offence under Section 354 IPC are against Pramjit Singh –

petitioner No.1. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not

required and they are ready to join investigation and co-

operate throughout.”

Interim relief was granted to petitioners No. 2 to 6 and not to

petitioner No.1.

It is submitted that petitioners No. 2 to 6 have since joined

investigation pursuant to interim order dated 19.05.2017 passed by this

2 of 4
14-10-2017 02:18:33 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-17970 of 2017 [ 3 ]

Court. They are ready and willing to face the proceedings and they will not

misuse the concession of anticipatory bail, if confirmed.

In respect to petitioner No.1, it is stated that the transaction in

question is purely civil in nature. No recovery is to be effected from him.

Therefore, the concession of anticipatory bail be afforded to him as well.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on a pointed query, informs

that the possession of the house in question is with petitioner No.1 pursuant

to an oral agreement of sale of the said house with the complainant for a

sum of `19,70,000/-. A sum of ` 2,10,000/- in various instalments was

handed over to the complainant though there is admittedly no documentary

proof of the same. Pursuant to the said amount of ` 2,10,000/- being given

to the complainant, possession of the property in question was in fact

handed over by the complainant herself. No such incident as mentioned ever

occurred. It is in fact the complainant who was the aggressor and she tried

to re-possess the property in question. It is to be noted that there is no

documentary proof whatsoever of handing over of the possession of the

property in question by the complainant herself on receipt of the said

amount of `2,10,000/-.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI

Balwinder Singh, Police Station City Kapurthala, verifies that petitioners

No. 2 to 6 have indeed joined investigation pursuant to interim orders

passed by this Court. It is submitted that it appears strange and opposed to

all probability that possession of property worth `20-25 lakhs was handed

over for a mere sum of `2,10,000/- and that too without any documentary

proof. However, in respect to petitioners No. 2 to 6 it is verified that their

custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from

3 of 4
14-10-2017 02:18:33 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-17970 of 2017 [ 4 ]

them. They are not reported to be involved in any other criminal case.

There is no allegation that the petitioners are likely to abscond or that they

are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts before the

learned trial Court, if released on bail.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of

the case, it is considered just and expedient to allow this petition qua

petitioners No. 2 to 6. Consequently, order dated 19.05.2017 qua

petitioners No. 2 to 6 is made absolute.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the

allegations in the FIR, no ground is made out for the grant of anticipatory

bail to petitioner No.1. The petition is accordingly dismissed qua petitioner

No.1.

( LISA GILL )
10.10.2017 JUDGE
rupi

Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No

Whether Reportable: Yes / No

4 of 4
14-10-2017 02:18:33 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *