SUSHIL MEHTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this common order, CRM-M No.36214 of 2017 titled Sushil Mehta Vs. State of Haryana and CRM-M No.31285 of 2017 titled Randeep Singh Vs. State of Haryana are being disposed of. Facts are being culled out from CRM-M No.36214 of 2017.

(2.) Petitioner(S) seek grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.337 dated 18.04.2017 registered under Sections 406, 420,506, 120-B IPC at Police Station Sadar Karnal, District Karnal.

(3.) As per allegations in the FIR, the complainant alleged that complainant party had purchased three room set flat i.e. T.C. 774, Second Floor, Chandigarh City 45 Karnal from APL Group of Company, Karnal through Randeep Singh. Complainant paid Rs.10,20,000/- in cash in three installments and Rs.4,30,000/- as premium. The owners of the company namely Sushil Mehta and Gulshan Chawla had given them one and half years time for completing the flat, but even expiry of one and half years, the complainant could not find any flat, nor any land was in their name. The allegations of fraud and cheating were made against Sushil Mehta, Gulshan Chawla and Randeep Singh. In the panchayat, Randeep Singh undertook to return the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- within four months, but he refused to pay the same after expiry of four months. Thereafter, he started exercising police influence of his brother in not making the payment.