S.S Saron, J.
Cr. Misc. No. 55040/2010:
Translation of complaint dated 4.6.2004 (Annexure-P.2) attached with the criminal miscellaneous application is taken on record subject to just exceptions.
The criminal miscellaneous stands disposed of.
Cr. Misc. No. M-12960/2010:
The petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR registered against him on 27.8.2004 for the offences under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC.
The complainant Sukhdev Singh filed a complaint against the petitioner Malkiat Singh as also Tejinder Pal Singh, Patinder Kaur, Aman Partap Singh alias Amandeep Singh, Paramjit Kaur alias Pushpinder Kaur, Harnek Singh and Satwinder Singh. It is alleged by the complainant that in the first week of May 2004 Satwinder Singh, Akal Property Dealer and Tejinder Pal Singh (accused No. 2) had informed the complainant that Malkiat Singh (petitioner) was owner in possession of plot measuring 560 square feet which comprises of six rooms, verandah, meter, gate and tap (Nalka). In the said building, Tejinder Pal Singh along with his wife Paramjit Kaur alias Pushpinder Kaur (accused No. 5) and father-in-law Harnek Singh (accused No. 6) were running Nanaksar Public School. Satwinder Singh and Tejinder Pal Singh informed the complainant that they would get deal of the said property settled with him. The complainant then asked them to arrange his meeting with Malkiat Singh (petitioner). The meeting was arranged after 4-5 days. The complainant along with his friend Arvinder Singh Sandhu went to Nanaksar School situated at Manakwal Road, Ludhiana. Then Satwinder Singh, Property Dealer, Tejinder Pal Singh and his wife Paramjit Kaur as also Harnek Singh father-in-law of Tejinder Pal Singh and his maternal cousin Amanpreet Singh (accused No. 4) and Makiat Singh (petitioner) owner were present there. Malkiat Singh showed a sale deed dated 7.4.2004 in his favour. He represented that he had purchased this land from Patinder Kaur (accused No. 3) who is the mother of Tejinder Pal Singh. She was selling the same because of dire need. Tejinder Pal Singh, his wife Paramjit Kaur and his father-in-law Harnek Singh represented to the complainant that the photograph of the seller shown in the sale deed was that of Patinder Kaur and Aman Partap Singh. The latter had signed as witness to the sale deed and was also present there. Aman Partap Singh also verified that Patinder Kaur had sold the land to Malkiat Singh. The complainant asked for the current Jamabandi. On 20.5.2004, the accused came along with Malkiat Singh (petitioner) and showed the complainant the Jamabandi in which Malkiat Singh was recorded as owner. Thereafter, agreement to sell was entered into in the presence of Satwinder Singh, Hardeep Singh and Tejinder Pal Singh. The complainant handed over Rs. 5 Lacs to Malkiat Singh out of the total consideration of the plot i.e Rs. 10,4,000/-. Then the complainant and Malkiat Singh signed on the agreement and the witnesses also put their signatures. The dates for execution of the sale deed was fixed upto 5.9.2004 The complainant then on 26.4.2004 went to the plot and started measuring the same. Then 2-3 persons who were passing across asked whether he has purchased this land or willing to purchase the same. The complainant informed them that he had purchased the land from Malkiat Singh (petitioner) and entered into an agreement to sell. The said persons then informed the complainant that Patinder Kaur was the owner of this land in which Tejinder Pal Singh, his wife and father-in-law were running a school with her consent. The sale deed in favour of Patinder Kaur was mortgaged with the Bank. They wanted the complainant to verify the same before registration of sale deed. On account of the suspicion raised the complainant inquired from nearby property dealers and he came to know that Patinder Kaur was indeed selling the land by showing her photographs on sale deed, he was informed that the lady shown in the photographs on the sale deed was not Patinder Kaur. On coming to know of the cheating/fraud the complainant met the accused. He threatened to take Police action. The accused then accepted that Patinder Kaur had mortgaged the land with the Bank and the bankers were threatening to auction the same. Due to the said reason they had entered into an agreement to sell so that the property could be saved. They accepted the mistake and asked for forgiveness. Tejinder Pal Singh issued a cheque dated 31.5.2004 for a sum of Rs. 3 Lacs of Vijaya Bank, Ludhiana. He promised that on 2.6.2004 they would come along with Patinder Kaur and satisfy him about the deal. On 2.6.2004, Tejinder Pal Singh along with Aman Partap Singh alias Amandeep Singh came to the complainant and informed that Patinder Kaur, mother of Tejinder Pal Singh had gone out of station for some urgent work. Therefore, they could not bring her. The said accused, however, handed over the possession of the property and six rooms and they took away the articles relating to the school. They also sought time to take away the remaining articles. The complainant on 3.6.2004 inquired about the account of Tejinder Pal Singh from his Bank and he came to know that he did not have Rs. 3 Lacs in his account for clearance of the cheque. The complainant was waiting that accused would bring Patinder Kaur but they did not come, therefore, in conspiracy with each other the accused had forged documents, sale deed etc. with intention to commit fraud and they had caused monetary loss of Rs. 5 Lacs to the complainant.
The petitioner is in custody since 27.7.2009 The investigation in the case is complete and challan has been filed. The recoveries have been effected. The prosecution has cited 7 witnesses and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner no witness has been examined till date. The trial in the case is likely to take time. The other accused, namely, Aman Partap Singh, Tejinder Pal Singh, Manjit Kaur and Surjit Singh have been released on regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 7.4.2004 and 13.10.2004 respectively. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the question of impersonating Patinder Kaur does not arise as the sale has not been actually effected. This aspect, however, is to be considered and gone into by the trial Court. The petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender on 10.1.2005 Later, he was arrested and is presently in jail. The prosecution is to establish and prove its case which is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class.
In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court shall be admitted to bail.
The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.
October 14, 2010. (S.S Saron) Judge
*hsp*
Comments