PARDEEP AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U T, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this order, I shall dispose of CRM M 33122 and 32435 of 2013 titled Pardeep Aggarwal v. State of U.T,Chandigarh. Pardeep Aggarwal, petitioner prays for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest in FIRs No. 157 and 290 dated 30.07.2013 for offence under section 420 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station 19 and 31, Chandigarh, respectively.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the aforesaid FIRs have been lodged by different complainants but handiwork of complainant Jaspal Singh. The petitioner submitted a complaint dated 08.03.2013 (Annexure P1) against Satish Kumar ASI, husband of complainant Smt. Sudesh. In the said complaint, inquiry was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police (South) U.T. Chandigarh and report dated 04.054.2013 (Annexure P2) was submitted, wherein it has been mentioned that ASI Satish Kumar and HC Ram Pal assured that they will not make any call to the complainant (Pardeep Aggarwal) in future and they have no dispute with the complainant. It is argued with vehemence that the inquiry report falsifies the allegations raised in the FIR lodged at the behest of Smt. Sudesh w/o ASI Satish Kumar.

(3.) It is further argued that as per allegations set out by Jaspal Singh in FIR No. 290 dated 30.07.2013, the petitioner agreed to sell his house for a sale consideration of Rs.22,90,000/- and he paid Rs. Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner and he agreed to execute sale deed on or before 19.11.2002. According to counsel, neither the alleged agreement to sell nor FIR makes reference to the mode of payment of Rs.20,00,000/-. It is submitted that Jaspal Singh was a partner of the petitioner and at that time, he came in possession of blank stamp papers with signatures of the petitioner, which were later used to forge agreement to sell. Jaspal Singh has already filed a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement in dispute pending adjudication before the civil Court. It is further argued that violation of the terms and conditions of agreement to sell, at the best gives rise to a civil liability and complainant Jaspal Singh has already taken recourse to appropriate remedy under the law.