SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the State does not dispute that the petitioner has since been joined the investigation in pursuance to the order dated 6.5.2020.

(2.) Learned counsel for the complainant, however, vehemently opposing the anticipatory bail submitted that the petitioner has not only cheated him but also entered into an agreement to sell with somebody else, to which learned counsel for the petitioner has clarified that the said agreement to sell was never executed and was long cancelled.

(3.) Be that as it may, the complainant had entered into an agreement to sell with the petitioner with open eyes knowing fully well that the property was mortgaged. Hence, the failure of the petitioner to release the property for mortgage cannot be termed as an offence under Section 420 IPC. Moreover, the complainant has already filed a suit for specific performance.