SATWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.437 dtd. 4/11/2025, registered under Ss. 406, 420 IPC, at Police Station Sector-13/17, District Panipat.

(2.) Succinctly facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of Sanjay Kumar. It was alleged that the complainant purchased a plot measuring 100 sq. yards situated at Sant Nagar, Gali No.3, Panipat from Satwant Singh (petitioner) on 13/2/2019, for which full and final payment was also made by the complainant and since then, he is in possession of the same. It was alleged that when the complainant started to raise construction on the said plot, then HUDA Department stopped him and informed that the said land pertains to HUDA Department. Thereafter, the complainant informed Satwant Singh about the same and to get the sale deed executed in his favour, however, accused Satwant Singh refused to get the sale deed registered. It was further alleged that neither the accused is getting the sale deed registered nor he is cooperating with him. The accused threatened him that in case, the complainant files a case against him, he would commit suicide. The accused is also involved in a FIR No.585 dtd. 24/4/2018 pertaining to registration of sale deed of Khasra No.941. The complainant made a complaint on 21/4/2025 for the same, however, no action has been taken on the same. Hence, the FIR was registered to take legal action against the petitioner. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Panipat, for the grant of anticipatory bail. Learned Court after hearing both the sides, finding no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, dismissed the same vide order dtd. 8/12/2025. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the petitioner was the owner of the land total measuring 09 bighas, 10 biswas, situated at Taraf Insar, Panipat, however, after two years of purchase of the said land, the same was acquired by State of Haryana in the year 1989. He submits that some of the landowners challenged the acquisition of land before this Court by way of filing CWP-5029-1992, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dtd. 7/10/2013 with a direction to the respondents therein to carry out fresh survey and re-demarcation of the land in question. He further submits that in view of the order dtd. 7/10/2013, the entire land of Patti Taraf Insar (now Sant Nagar) was released from acquisition and land surrounding the land of the petitioner, was developed as residential colony. He submits that lateron, the said land was released from acquisition vide notification dtd. 15/1/2014 followed by notification dtd. 30/4/2018. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the vendors of the land to get the sale deed executed in his favour, however, they did not come forward to get it executed, hence, the petitioner SHARMILA DEVI filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dtd. 24/2/1987 which was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dtd. 15/9/2018. It is submitted that it was only at the time of execution of the decree, he came to know that the land has already been transferred in the name of HDA in the revenue record in view of the acquisition, whereas, the entire land of Patti Taraf Insar, Panipat had already been released from the acquisition, but in the revenue record, the same has never been corrected by the officials. Thus, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP-6552-2022, challenging the acquisition proceedings and for release of the land in question, which is pending adjudication before this Court for 10/2/2026. He has further submitted that the complainant entered into the agreement dtd. 13/2/2019 with full knowledge of the said litigation and he intentionally lodged the present FIR against the petitioner with ulterior motive. Even otherwise, the agreement dtd. 13/2/2019 is governed by the law of limitation, where Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides the period of three years for seeking specific performance of the agreement, which admittedly, the complainant has not availed within the limitation and thus, the registration of the present FIR, is totally an abuse of the process of the Court. He has relied upon the judgments of Hon 'ble Supreme Court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168; Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293; Dalip Kaur vs. Jagnar Singh, (2009) 14 SCC 696 and Sushil Sethi vs. State of Arunacha Pradesh, (2020) 3 SCC 240. He, thus, submits that in these facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.