IQBAL SINGH SABHARWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C., is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners Iqbal Singh Sabharwal and Harpreet Walia Sabharwal, who have been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.239, dated 17.07.2007, registered at Police Station, Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

(2.) Mr.P.S.Hundal and Mr.D.S.Bali, learned senior Advocates, representing petitioner Nos.1 and 2, repectively, contend that a case of civil in nature has been given the colour of a criminal case; after thorough investigation, the Investigating Agency had concluded that no case for initiating proceedings against the petitioners was made out and, as such, the cancellation report was submitted before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate, who, without issuing notice to the complainant, took cognizance and declared the petitioners as proclamied offenders; earlier petiton bearing CRM-M-31573- 2012, seeking the same relief was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.12.2013 since the complainant had assured the petitioners to effect a compromise and withdraw the complaint presented before the police; the petitioners were never served with the summons or bailable or non-bailable warrants prior to declaring them as proclaimed offenders and that the petitioners are not required for interrogation and, as such, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail be accepted.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr.Shilesh Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by Mr.Hemant Saini, learned counsel for the complainant, has vehmently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and submitted that initially the Deputy Superintendent of Police had proposed to submit the cancellation report, but the Senior Superintendent of Police disagreed with the said report and a Special Investigation Team was constituted and that too approved the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police but later on at the instance of Director General of Police, Punjab, the matter was further investigated and it was found that the petitioners had intentionally concealed from the complainant the fact that the land in question was not mutated in their names nor the said land was duly partitioned as was claimed by them (petitioners) in Memorandum of Understanding, dated 21.04.2006, and the deed of confirmation, dated 09.09.2006. It was further concluded that on 21.11.2006, the petitioners presented an application before the Chief Town Planner, Punjab, for grant of Change of Land Use. Certain documents were annexed with the said application. The particulars disclosed in the aplication and the documents annexed therewith did not match with the actual record. Since the land in question was not mutated in the name of MPS Multiplex Company belonging to the petitoners and, as such, disagreeing with the earlier reports furnished by the Police Officers, the newely constituted Special Investigation Team directed that the charge-sheet be presented for the prosecution of the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420, IPC, only. The complainant filed a petition bearing CRM-M-35913-2012 before this Court alleging that the charge-sheet was not filed for relevant provisions of forgery etc. The said petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police to look into the grievance of the complainant. The Senior Superintendent of Police sought the legal opinion and thereafter the Investigating Agency presented the supplementary charge-sheet for the prosecution of the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 466, 467 and 471, IPC. The learned Magistrate issued the process for summoning of the petitioners. In the meantime, the petitioners, once again, moved an application before the police and the Investigating Agency filed the supplementary cancellation report. The leraned Area Judicial Magistrate disagreeing with the supplementary charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Agency proposed to proceed with the earlier charge-sheet presented by the Investigating Agency. Since the petitioners had failed to appear before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate, therefore, after exhausting the procedure for procuring their presence, the proceedings under Section 82, Cr.P.C., were initiated and after following due procedure, the petitioners were delcared as proclaimed offenders. Instead of appearing before the learned trial Court, the petitioners challenged the order, dated 03.07.2014, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge by way of a criminal revision petiton and the same was dismissed by a detailed order, dated 20.08.2014. They further submitted that from the very beginning the petitioners had a mala fide intention to commit cheating with the complainant and by presenting the forged documents and giving wrong assurance induced the complainant to part with an amount of Rs. 25 crores. It was also submitted that after decision of the first petition seeking anticipatory bail, no new ground is made out and, as such, the present petition seeking the same relief is not maintainable.