P.S. KAPOOR Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Misc. Nos. 38838-39 of 2009 The applications are allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Criminal Misc. No. M-20078 of 2009 Prayer in the present petition is for pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 152 dated 1.7.2009, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered against the petitioner.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner in the FIR is that the alleged owner of the property in dispute, namely, Balraj Singh Bhuttar was further trying to sell the same through present petitioner and the documents in original had already been handed over to him. The submission is that the property in dispute was purchased by Balraj Singh Bhuttar vide registered sale deed dated 20.5.2009, for which No Objection Certificate was issued by the Estate Office on 18.5.2009. After the registration of the sale deed even in the record of the Estate Office, the property was transferred in the name of Balraj Singh Bhuttar. It is only that the petitioner was engaged thereafter by Balraj Singh Bhuttar to sell the same further. He was handed over the original documents as the same were always asked for by a prospective buyer for verification. The petitioner had merely acted in good faith. He has no role to play in the transfer of property in the name of Balraj Singh Bhuttar by adopting dubious means. On a query by the Court as to whether the petitioner was a property dealer, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a suspended Haryana Government employee of Excise and Taxation Department, who is doing this business on part time basis. He further submitted that the petitioner did not have any reason to doubt the bonafides of the earlier transaction as even the actual physical possession of the property was also with Balraj Singh Bhuttar. The owner of the property, namely, Balraj Singh Bhuttar was introduced to the petitioner by one Mr. Dhillon, who is a property dealer and is known to the petitioner. Mr. Dhillon and Balraj Singh Bhuttar are stated to be business partners. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to hand over the original documents, which are in his possession and also co-operate in the investigation to find out the real accused. As no recovery is to be made, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the complainant submitted that considering the fact that it is a tip off an ice berg where a lot of absentee landlords are being defrauded in a planned manner by unscrupulous property dealers, the matter having come to notice deserves to be investigated in detail and in such cases, the quality of investigation in custody is always better. A lot of persons are involved in the whole process.