RAMESH CHANDER KAKKAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no. 167 dated 07.08.2012, under Sections 420/120-B IPC, registered at police station Jandiala Guru, Amritsar Rural.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

(3.) It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that dispute, if any, is civil in nature and that even from the reading of FIR, no offence under Section 420 Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. It has been contended that admittedly lease deed, Annexure P1 was executed by complainant in favour of Gurnam Singh and Rachpal Singh and possession of the land in dispute was handed over for a period of 15 years and lease was to be extended for further period of five years. It is further submitted that the possession of the land in dispute was handed over by Gurnam Singh son of Mohinder Singh to Sukhwaryam Singh, who handed over the possession of the same to present petitioner. It is further contended that he filed suit for permanent injunction against complainant Gurdial Singh and complainant also filed a suit for mandatory injunction against present petitioner and both the civil suits are pending. It is also contended that a civil writ petition was also filed by complainant in this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.03.2012, Annexure P3 by observing that as civil suit before the court of competent jurisdiction in regard to aforesaid validity of extension of lease or otherwise is pending, hence, it was observed that no order was required to be passed in the writ petition. Hence, it is contended that the dispute regarding alleged extension of lease deed is pending before the civil court.