Hans Raj vs State of H.P.

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This judgment shall dispose of Cr. M.P.(M) Nos. 864,866 and 868 of 2011 as all of them have arisen out of FIR No. 94/2011 dated 30th September, 2011, registered at Police Station Dalhousie, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC.

It has been stated by the petitioners that a complaint was filed before learned Judicial Magistrate, Dalhousie, who referred the same to the police u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the direction to register the case and thereupon the case was registered at Police Station, Dalhousie. The petitioners are innocent, they have been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioners have committed no offence. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in view of the registration of the case. The petitioners are ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of the Court. The petitioners had filed bail applications which have been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, on 20.10.2011. It has been submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not appreciated the case properly. The prayer has been made for admitting the petitioners on bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C.

The bail applications have been opposed. The status report has been filed in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 864 of 2011. It has been stated that the complainant Ajay Kumar Mahajan had filed a complaint in the Court against the petitioners and one Harash Mahajan. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Dalhousie on 26.09.2011 directed the S.H.O., Police Station, Dalhousie, for registration of the case and to investigate the matter in accordance with law u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. In the status report, it has been stated that complainant and his brother had executed two General Power of Attorneys, one in favour of Avtar Singh and another in favour of Hans Raj Thakur on 16.10.2010, registered on 18.10.2010 in the Office of Sub Registrar, Indora. The complainant and Naveen Kumar never agreed to sell their property to Hans Raj nor they received any amount either from Avtar Singh or Hans Raj or from Harash Mahajan.

On 17.10.2010 complainant came to know that Hans Raj and Harash Mahajan procured General Power of Attorneys in order to grab the property. On this, complainant on 18.10.2010 revoked both the Power of Attorneys executed in favour of Avtar Singh and Hans Raj Thakur. Hans Raj Thakur and Harash Mahajan were informed by the complainant and his brother Naveen Kumar that both the Power of Attorneys have been cancelled by execution of revocation of Power of Attorneys. Avtar Singh, Hans Raj and Harash Mahajan even after coming to know that Power of Attorneys executed in their favour have been revoked, they procured a copy of General Power of Attorney executed in favour of Avtar Singh from the Offfice of Sub Registrar, Indora, which was already cancelled. Avtar Singh, Hans Raj Thakur and Harash Mahajan in connivance with each other got procured a sale deed on the basis of copy of General Power of Attorney which was executed in favour of Hans Raj Thakur and presented the same before Sub Registrar, Dalhousie on 19.10.2010.

Lajam Singh was duty bound to check the validity of the copy of General Power of Attorney, but in connivance with Avtar Singh and Hans Raj Thakur, he registered the sale deed. Lajam Singh was not competent to register the sale deed on the basis of the General Power of Attorney. Harash Mahajan has also handed over possession of the part of the property and Avtar Singh threatened to take possession of the entire property and to get mutation of the said property attested in his name on the basis of illegal sale deed. Hans Raj Thakur in second week of May, 2011 alleged that he had already become owner of the property and the complainant has no right in the same. The complainant and his brother Naveen Kumar have not received any amount from Avtar Singh,Hans Raj Thakur and Harash Mahajan, who cheated the complainant and Naveen Kumar to grab the property. The complainant and his brother had filed a written complaint against accused on 15.07.2011 which was sent to SHO, Police Station, Dalhousie, for conducting inquiry, but police failed to investigate the matter properly. The prayer has been made for rejection of the bail applications.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that dispute raised by the complainant is of civil nature. The complainant earlier approached the police and the police also found that the dispute is of civil nature, but later on the directions of learned Judicial Magistrate u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., the case has been registered and now the police has taken a different stand. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in the case.

It appears from the allegations made in the complaint and other material on record that case projected by the complainant is mainly documents based. In the status report, there is nothing that petitioners are not co-operating in the investigation nor it has been stated that any specific document is to be recovered from specific accused. Lajam Singh was the Sub Registrar at the relevant time. The handwritings and signatures of the accused can be taken by the Investigating Agency even when the accused are on bail. Harash Mahajan accused has already been granted bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C by this Court in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 814 of 2011 on 10.10.2011. The purpose of custodial interrogation has not been indicated in the status report.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 864, 866 and 868 of 2011 are allowed and in the event of arrest of petitioners in FIR No. 94/2011 dated 30th September, 2011, registered at Police Station Dalhousie, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC, they be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the conditions that petitioners shall continue to join the investigation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.

The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail applications and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Copy ''dasti''.