RADHEY SHYAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 27.06.2016 (Annexure P-8) in FIR No.599 dated 25.09.2015 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 120-B IPC, at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat and also prayed for setting aside of order dated 13.12.2016 (Annexure P-14) and has prayed for cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent No.2 by the trial Court i.e. learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution in the FIR that the present petitioner/complainant was approached by one Jagbir Singh in connivance with respondent No.2 with a view to purchase a plot measuring 1000 Square Yards situated near village Ugra Kheri standing in the name of Smt. Reena wife of respondent No.2. The petitioner relied upon the assurances of respondent No.2 and entered in to agreement for a total consideration @ Rs. 1871 per Square Yard and also paid cash amount in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lacs only) to respondent No.2. The date of registration fixed was 11.03.2015. Respondent No.2 again came to the petitioner and said that he was in need of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs only) which the petitioner paid to him on 02.03.2015 and a receipt was obtained on the back of the agreement. Thus in all a total amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lacs only) has been taken by respondent No.2. The balance amount was arranged by the petitioner with a view to get executed the sale deed in his favour. But then when he went to respondent No.2. asking him to execute the sale deed, respondent No.2 stated that it is to be done after demarcation of the land etc. and then took the entire consideration of Rs. 18,71,000/- (Rupees eighteen lacs and seventy one thousand only) but did not deliver the possession. There is an agreement dated 10.03.2015 (Annexure P- 3) in which there is a recital about the payment of Rs. 18,71,000/- (Rupees eighteen lacs and seventy one thousand only). Thereafter, respondent No.2 did not execute the sale deed though he had obtained the entire amount of consideration. The petitioner lodged FIR and respondent No.2 attempted to obtain anticipatory bail but his plea was turned down even by this Court. The respondent No.2 then was arrested on 13.06.2016 and he applied for regular bail and the trial Court granted regular bail on 27.06.2016 on the same date when the application was made. Thus the fact remains that the petitioner has lost his entire money and could not get the plot in his name. Apart from that the petitioner has averred that respondent No.2 started threatening the petitioner to withdraw his complaint or he will eliminate him and his family members. He then submitted that on 29.06.2016 at 10.30 am respondent No.2 threatened him with threat to kill and then the petitioner had filed complaint (Annexure P- 2) on which no action has been taken by the police officers. The impugned order is challenged on various grounds that respondent No.2 has been misusing his liberty by threatening the petitioner and his family members. This Court had issued notice of motion to the respondents, including respondent No.2 for final disposal. After hearing counsel for the rival parties respondent No.2 was specifically told that when admittedly he had received entire money of Rs. 18,71,000/- (Rupees eighteen lacs and seventy one thousand only), there was no reason why the money should not be returned back to the petitioner if the respondent No.2 was not willing to execute the sale deed. Accordingly the matter was adjourned for May 22, 2017 to enable the learned counsel for respondent no.2 to take instructions. Thereafter the petition was heard on May 26, 2017 and the counsel for respondent No.2 filed application CRM No.18098 of 2017 along with affidavit which is taken on record.

(3.) The petition for cancellation of bail is being opposed on the ground that it would not be maintainable for assailing merits of the impugned order granting regular bail by the trial Court. There is further submission that there is one suit filed by one Raghbir Singh against respondent No.2 in relation to the same property and that is why it is not possible to execute the sale deed as the litigation with Raghbir Singh stands initiated. Though the civil suit filed by Raghbir Singh was dismissed on 11.02.2016, the counsel for petitioner contended that remedy of the appeal etc. is still be available and therefore respondent No.2 is trying to mislead this Court that he was prevented in executing the sale deed in respect of the property which he had himself deliberately put in the litigation.