PAWAN KUMAR SINGLA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matrix the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail and emanating from the record, is that, petitioner No.1 Pawan Kumar Singla, Lachhman Dass Gupta son of Bansi Ram (for brevity "the complainant") and Rajiv Goel formed a partnership firm in the name & style of M/s Pawan Developers, vide deed dated 7.7.2008 (Annexure P3). The main operation/area of the firm was to purchase the land and to convert it into residential colonies & commercial showrooms and then to sell the same in open market. It was specifically stipulated in clauses 16 & 17 of the deed that none of the parties would be entitled to sell, mortgage or otherwise alienate, assign his other interest to an outsider or creating any charge in partnership interest without getting the prior approval of other partners in writing. Even individual partner was not entitled to transfer his own share to an outsider without getting approval of the other partners in writing. The complainant claimed that the firm had purchased the land measuring 164 Kanals, situated in villages Dal Singh Wala and Jaitu for development of the residential/commercial colonies, by way of registered sale deed to develop Arvind Nagar, Phase 1 & 2, residential colonies. They moved an application to Government of Punjab for its approval and had obtained permission for change of use of land from agriculture to residential by depositing the requisite charges in Municipal Council (for short "the MC"), Jaitu. The site plans were also passed by the Chief Town Planner, Punjab and MC Jaitu.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in brief in so far as relevant, was that although Pawan Kumar Singla accused (petitioner No.1) was not competent to alienate any part of land in question without the written consent of other partners, but still, he has illegally sold the developed land in dispute to his own sons Rakesh Kumar and Arvind Singla (petitioner Nos.2 and 3) with the connivance of other accused. In this manner, he has cheated and misappropriated the amount of other partners for illegal gains.

(3.) HAVING exercised and lost their right before Additional Sessions Judge, now the petitioners have preferred the instant petition for anticipatory bail in the indicated criminal case, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC.