BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contour of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail and emanating from the record, is that, the Jalandhar Steel Castings Private Limited was stated to be owner of the property in dispute. Petitioner Bhupinder Singh son of Mohinder Singh property dealer, claiming himself to be attorney of original owner, has entered into an agreement to sell the land in favour of complainant Ghanhiya Lal son of Dukhanti Ram (for brevity "the complainant"). The complainant got executed and registered the sale deed dated 19.11.2008 in the name of his wife Chandrma Devi. According to the prosecution that when Chandrma Devi (vendee) went to take possession, then it revealed that the plot was owned by some other person and the petitioner has sold the same by preparing the forged power of attorney and other documents for the amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- by telling a lie and playing fraud with the complainant. When the complainant confronted the petitioner in this regard, then, he threatened him with dire consequence of elimination.

(2.) Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in detail in the FIR in all, the prosecution claimed that the petitioner has hatched a criminal conspiracy, prepared a false power of attorney, other documents and cheated the wife of complainant at the first instance and then refused to return the amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- to her. In this manner, he has cheated and misappropriated the indicated amount of wife of complainant. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner-accused, by virtue of FIR No.14 dated 14.1.2013 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Navi Baradari, District Jalandhar in the manner depicted here-in-above.

(3.) Having exercised and remained unsuccessful before Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition for anticipatory bail in the present criminal case, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC.