O P MITTAL Vs. STATE (UT CHANDIGARH)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a tenant in SCF No.8, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh has approached this court to seek pre-arrest bail in a case FIR No.4 dated 22.7.2009 registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Station, Vigilance, Chandigarh. This FIR has been registered on a complaint by owner of the SCF, namely, Tara Singh, who is an NRI and staying in U.K. He had submitted this complaint from U.K. when Home Secretary/CVO ordered the case to be registered and matter be enquired into. The complaint is regarding illegal sale of SCF No.8, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh on the name of the petitioner. The complainant would allege that this sale has been done behind his back by land mafia and on connivance of Advocates with the Estate Officers on the basis of an attorney, which did not contain any authorization for the attorney to sell the SCF.

(2.) As per the FIR, the complainant had contacted one Mr.J.B.Singh, Advocate Uxbridge Road, Hayes, Middlesex for arranging transfer of SCF on his name. On his asking, the complainant had executed a general power of attorney in favour of Harnek Singh, who happens to be working as a Munshi with an Advocate. The complainant has mentioned that earlier he had given an attorney in the name of his brother Jaswant Singh and apprehending his dubious mind, he had got it canclled on 9.3.2006. As per the allegations, the said brother had also colluded with the petitioner to execute a compromise deed/agreement dated 28.2.2006 for sale of this SCF at Rs.25.00 lacs, though attorney on his name did not have any authorization for him to sell the property. Not only, an agreement/compromise was reached, but a suit was even filed by the petitioner in connivance with the brother and attorney of the petitioner, which was later dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, the complainant has learnt about the illegal sale of this SCF by his attorney Harnek Singh in the name of the petitioner in collusion with his Advocate, whom he engaged through Advocate in U.K. Though this attorney also did not contain any clause or authorization for the attorney to sell this property, but the Advocates were able to manage NOC from the Estate Office, which, as per the allegations, would reveal their connivance as well.

(3.) The perusal of the record placed before me would also indicate that the attorney which was furnished to the Estate Office for obtaining the NOC contained a clear recital that attorney did not have any power to sell this property. Still, the NOC was issued which would only show that there was indeed a connivance on the part of the staff of the Estate Office. Such a thing cannot easily be managed. Obviously, it could be managed by someone, who was ultimately to benefit from this. Apparent benefit is to the petitioner.