KUSUM LATA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in these petitions is for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners Kusum Lata and Rajpal Singh Rana, in FIR No. 131 dated 18.04.2020 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC (Section 120-B IPC was added later on), registered at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per allegations in the FIR, petitioner Kusum Lata entered into an agreement to sell with the complainant for a sum of Rs. 18.00 lacs and received an amount of Rs.5.00 lacs as earnest money. The agreement to sell was witnessed by her husband/co-accused Rajpal Singh Rana. It is further stated in the FIR that the agreement to sell was executed on 30.07.2019 and stipulated date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 30.10.2019. It is also stated that while entering into the agreement to sell, petitioner Kusum Lata told the complainant that house is free from all encumbrances and there is no loan on the said house. Later on, the complainant came to know that petitioner Kusum Lata had raised a credit limit loan from State Bank of India (earlier State Bank of Patiala) and on verification, it was found that in the name of Jagdamba Paint House, the loan had been taken. Later on, petitioner Kusum Lata got the time extended upto 11.11.2019 with an undertaking that the loan will be cleared by that time, however, despite the fact that complainant remained present in the office of sub-Registrar on that day, the petitioners did not appear, as they, in a pre-planned manner, had cheated the complainant and allured her to part away Rs.5.00 lacs paid as earnest money for selling the mortgaged property.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are still ready to execute the sale deed by getting the loan cleared from the bank. It is further submitted that while granting interim protection, it was noticed by this Court that it was in the knowledge of the complainant that the property is mortgaged with the bank and it was verified by her son. It is also submitted that petitioner Rajpal Singh Rana is not owner of the property and it is his wife/co-accused Kusum Lata, who is owner of the property and she is ready and willing to execute the sale deed.