GAURAV UMMAT Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners Gaurav Ummat and Amit Ummat seek grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them vide FIR No. 118 dtd. 27/6/2022 under Ss. 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471/120-B IPC at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana.

(2.) The FIR was lodged at the instance of Sachin Goyal wherein it is alleged that he is into real estate business and had carved out a colony in village Gill and village Manakwal by the name of 'Ring Road City'. Several plots have been sold and some are still under the ownership and possession of the complainant. It is alleged that the writing work in respect of the deeds and documents was being looked after by Goldy Ummat (petitioner-Amit Ummat) and his brother Gaurav Ummat and that the original record of the complainant was with them as the relations between them and the complainant had been good and the complainant used to sign on even blank stamp papers on their asking. The complainant alleges that Plot No. 9-A, measuring 200 square yards, was owned by him and was in his possession. The complainant, being busy in his work, rarely used to visit colony. However, on 21/3/2021, when he visited the colony, he found that some construction was going on in Plot No. 9-A. When he objected to the same, the person present there disclosed his name as Malkiat Singh and stated that he has been authorized by Goldy Ummat and Gaurav Ummat and the said person even threatened the complainant to get him killed. It is alleged that later Goldy Ummat openly challenged the complainant and stated that he had got prepared forged documents and will take possession of plots of the complainant.

(3.) The learned counsel representing the petitioners has submitted that though the complainant has alleged that petitioners are deed writers but the said fact is factually incorrect as they are not into the said profession and infact that it is their father, who was a licensed deed writer, with whom the complainant had some dealings, but the petitioners' father unfortunately expired on 8/8/2019. The learned counsel submits that it was in order to settle some financial commitment that the complainant executed an Agreement for Sale dtd. 13/5/2019 (Annexure P-5) for sale of various of his properties in favour of Amit Kumar Ummat after taking full and final payment. The learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant Sachin Goyal even executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of petitioner Gaurav Ummat on 13/5/2019 (Annexure P-5) in respect of all of his properties situated in State of Punjab and that the said General Power of Attorney was duly registered before the Sub-Registrar. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact the complainant had been changing his stand and while at some point of time he had taken a stand that the Power of Attorney in question had been got executed from him by way of fraud but now he alleges that the same is a result of forgery. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, at best, the allegations in the present case would constitute a civil dispute and in fact civil suits had already been filed by Angrej Singh, Veena Rani and Muskan Ummat (Annexures P-6 to P-9) and in one case, interim injunction has been issued on 22/4/2021 (Annexure P-10). The learned counsel has submitted that in these circumstances, the complainant having executed the aforesaid two documents, cannot turn round now to disown them so as to allege that the petitioners had fraudulently sold his properties.