Samarjeet and Ram Kaur vs State of Haryana

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-23930 of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No. M-21392 of 2009, filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 758 dated 31.12.2008, under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City, Jind, District Jind.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.

Brief allegations against the present petitioners are that they are mother and son and that son namely Samarjeet-petitioner executed an agreement to sell (Annexure P-1) in favour of complainant and some others for selling the land measuring 8 kanal situated in the revenue estate of Jind as per jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 for a sale consideration of Rs. 17,50,000/-. Samarjit represented himself as owner of the said land and stated that the same was agreed to be purchased from accused No. 3 and 4. Hence, upon the said representation agreement (Annexure P-1) was executed by the complainant and six others with Samarjeet and a sum of Rs. 17,50,000/- was paid in the presence Satish Kumar and Ashok Kumar and however, accused No. 1 neither executed sale deed nor delivered actual physical possession to complainant and rather just after four days of the execution of the said agreement, four kanal of land out of eight kanal was sold by the owners through General Power of Attorney in favour of Ram Kaur-mother of Simranjeet vide sale deed dated 28.2.2006 and that hence fraud has been committed upon complainant and other persons in whose favour agreement to sell was executed, by both the accused in conspiracy with each other.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner Samarjeet that in fact he had taken a loan of Rs. 17,50,000/- from the complainant and that the agreement was never executed by him. Though, at the time of arguments it has also been argued that even from agreement (Annexure P-1) stated to have been executed by him, no offence is made out as the liability is of civil in nature and false case has been registered against him just to harass and force him to pay the amount to the complainant. He has also placed reliance upon Md. Ibrahim and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 369. It has been further contended that in Annexure P-1 it has been mentioned that the possession has been delivered and that hence the agreement requires registration and however as the same has not been got registered, the same is not a legal document. He has also placed reliance upon K.B. Saha and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Development Consultant Ltd., .

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused Smt. Ram Kaur that she is having no concern with the agreement to sell allegedly executed by her son Samarjeet in favour of complainant and other persons and that she was not even present at the time of execution of the said agreement and that no amount was received by her and that rather she had purchased the land from the real owners.

The bail applications have been vehemently opposed by learned Counsel for the State on the plea that both the petitioners being mother and son have conspired to cause wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to complainant and six others by executing an agreement to sell in favour of complainant and six others by showing previous agreement in their favour executed by real owners and by delivering both the agreements to complainant and others and thereby inducing them to part with a sum of Rs. 17,50,000/- and that however later on they got four kanals of land out of eight kanal of land transferred in favour of Smt. Ram Kaur-mother of Samarjeet from the real owners and no sale deed was in fact executed in favour of complainant and others in whose favour agreement was executed by Samarjeet. Hence, it is contended that it is a clear case of fraud committed upon the complainant by both the accused in conspiracy with each other being mother and son and their intention since the very beginning was to deceive the complainant and other persons. It is further contended that authorities on which reliance has been placed by the petitioners-accused, are not applicable to the facts of this case.

It has further been contended that a declaratory suit was also filed by Samarjeet after registration of FIR, in which it has been stated in para No. 4 of the plaint that previous agreement stood cancelled as plaintiff could not make the balance payment due to losses and hence agreement came to an end and that the said suit was got dismissed in default later on.

It is further contended that on 28.8.2009 it was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is ready and willing to settle the dispute with the complainant in case a chance is given to him and hence interim bail was granted to him. It is further contended that case was also sent to Mediation and Conciliation Center of the High Court for reconciliation and that however nothing has been paid to the complainant and six other persons. Hence, it is contended that in view of these facts petitioners are not entitled for extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.

In view of the aforementioned facts, both the petitioners being mother and son have conspired to deceive complainant and six others and obtained Rs. 17,50,000/- from them by showing previous agreement in favour of Samarjeet by the true owners and thereafter four kanal of land was got transferred in favour of petitioner Ram Kaur just after four days of the said agreement.

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting interim relief to the petitioner Samarjeet had also recorded that petitioner wanted to settle the dispute with the complainant if a chance is given to him. Chance was given to him and the case was also sent to Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court and however nothing has been paid by the petitioners to the complainant.

Hence, in view of these facts, it is not a fit case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitions for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners Samarjeet and Ram Kaur are dismissed.

The petitions stand disposed of accordingly.