Shanta Kumari and Vinay Sikand vs State of Haryana

Sabina, J.—Vide this order, CRM-M Nos. 35492 of 2009 and 1203 of 2010 will be disposed of as these have arisen out of the same FIR.

These petitions have been filed u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 255 dated 7.11.2009 under Sections 406/ 420 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short), registered at Police Station , Baldev Nagar District Ambala.

The contents of the FIR, as reproduced in para 6 of the petition filed by petitioner Shanta Kumari, read as under:

Sir, the applicant submits as under:- 1. That the applicant is a permanent resident of House No. 4/5, Ranibagh, Ambala Cantt. 2. That the applicant wants to purchase one house for his residential purpose and Vinay Sikand, accused, approached that he is owner and in actual physical possession of his house bearing No. 189, situated in Model Town, Ambala City measuring 180 sq. yds. And that he wants to sell the same and accordingly, an agreement dated 28.7.2008 was executed between the parties regarding the sale of the house for a total sale consideration of Rs. 15,25,000/-. The applicant paid a sum of Rs. 3 lacs as earnest money on the same day in the presence of the marginal witnesses. The last date for execution and registration of sale deed was also fixed on 30.12.2009. (Photocopy of the agreement is enclosed herewith for perusal). 3. Thereafter, the accused approached that he requires the money and the applicant paid a sum of Rs. 10,25,000/- on different dates and he signed the same in token of having receipt the same and in this way the accused received total earnest money of Rs. 13,25,000/-. 4. The applicant has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and on 30.12.2008 the applicant came to the office of SR Ambala for getting the sale deed registered and executed in his favour, but the accused did not turn up. 5. That thereafter the applicant approached and requested several times, to the accused Vinay Sikand to get the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement dated 26.7.2008, but he put off the matter by way or the other. 6. That the applicant made inquiries and now it has come to know that he was not the owner of the house in question and the house owned and possessed by one Smt. Shanta Kumari in the municipal record. Which clearly shows that the accused Vinay Sikand in conspiracy with the said Smt. Shanta Kumari has cheated the applicant to part with amount of Rs. 13,25,000/-. 7. That the applicant has been cheated by the aforesaid accused/persons and both the accused have cheated the applicant to part with on account of Rs. 13,25,000/- so the accused have committed the criminal offences for which they are liable to be punished. You are therefore, requested to kindly register the case against the accused persons and to punish them accordingly.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the dispute was purely civil in nature and hence, the petitioners were entitled to be released on bail.

Learned State counsel, who is assisted by learned Counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has submitted that petitioner Vinay Sikand had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the complainant although he was not owner of the property in dispute. Petitioner Shanta Kumari was the owner of the property in dispute. The earnest money of Rs. 13,25,000/- had been forwarded by petitioner Vinay Sikand to petitioner Shanta Kumari. The complainant had thus been cheated by the petitioners. Both the petitioners are related to each other. Petitioner Vinay Sikand is the nephew of petitioner Shanta Kumari.

As per the prosecution case, both the petitioners in connivance with each other have cheated the complainant and have taken Rs. 13,25,000/- from the complainant. Petitioner Vinay Sikand had executed the agreement to sell in favour of the complainant although he was not owner of the property in dispute. The money had allegedly been passed on to owner Shanta Kumari by Vinay Sikand.

Keeping in view the seriousness of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed.