SAPNA GULATI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, Sapna Gulati and Raman Kumar Gulati, have filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 54 dated 12.8.2009 registered in Police Station Division No.4, Ludhiana, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. They have contended that they have not committed any such offence and have been falsely implicated. Allegations made in the FIR are false, frivolous and vexatious and no offence is made out from the perusal thereof. It was Lalit Kumar who had executed the agreement to sell dated 15.5.2008 in favour of petitioner No.2 regarding the plot in dispute, after receiving a sum of Rs.7,00000/- as earnest money. Further a sum of Rs.2,00000/- was paid by petitioner No. 2 by means of a cheque and the balance amount of Rs.6002000/- was to be paid at the time of the registeration of the sale deed and the possession was to be delivered on that date. The sale deed could not be executed on that date and the date was extended. In the meanwhile, on the basis of the said agreement, petitioner No.2 agreed to sell this plot in favour of the complainant, vide agreement dated 4.7.2008, after receiving Rs.12,00000/- as earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed on 20.1.2008, after the receipt of the balance sale consideration. At the time of the execution of that agreement the complainant had the full knowledge that petitioner No.2 is selling the plot on the basis of the earlier agreement dated 15.5.2008 and that fact was also mentioned in the agreement dated 4.7.2008. Agreement dated 15.5.2008 was handed over to the complainant and she is in possession thereof. Even after the registration of the FIR, petitioner No.2 approached the complainant and told that she is still ready and willing to execute a sale deed in her favour but she refused and demanded back the sum of Rs.12,00000/-. The intention of the complainant has become mala fide on account of the fact that her husband is a Municipal Councilor and is an influential person. It is on account of that fact the present FIR has been registered against them. They are ready to join investigation as and when ordered by this Court and there is no apprehension that they would abscond and tamper with the prosecution evidence.

(2.) Notice of the application was given to the State and the same has been contested by Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab, on its behalf. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides.

(3.) It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant had the knowledge of the fact that there was only an agreement to sell in favour of petitioner No.2 and she agreed to purchase the plot from her on the basis of that agreement itself. Now it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant to allege that petitioner No.2 had no title in the plot in dispute and as such committed the offence of cheating. She also submitted that the petitioners were only to receive their commission as property dealers.