MANOHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.212 dtd. 26/10/2018 under Ss. 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kartarpur, District Jalandhar.

(2.) The allegations, as contained in the FIR are that the petitioner had sold agriculture land measuring 11 acres and 08 marlas, to father of the complainant situated at village Ali Khela, Sub-Tehsil Kartarpur, District Jalandhar, on the basis of a Will, statedly executed by one Bhagat Singh in his favour. Believing the petitioner, the father of the complainant had purchased the said property by paying an amount of Rs.46.00 lakhs. It is further alleged that for getting the above said sale deed executed, an amount of approximately Rs.2.5 lakhs had to be incurred as registration expenses. However, later on, the said land was subjected to litigation by legal heirs of above said Bhagat Singh, claiming that the said Will, claimed by the petitioner, was a fabricated document. In fact, the said Bhagat Singh already stood expired way back in the year 1986, whereas, the Will was stated by the petitioner to be dtd. 10/3/1998. Hence, the petitioner had duped the complainant/his father by putting up a fake Will of a person who already stood expired. As the facts, further unfold, the legal representatives of Bhagat Singh also filed a complaint against the present petitioner. However, that complaint was dismissed. Another fact involved in the case is that, on the basis of said alleged Will, the petitioner had got an ex-parte decree, declaring him to be the owner of the property. That ex-parte decree was challenged by the legal heirs of Bhagat Singh. Their suit was decreed by the trial Court and the ex-parte decree in favour of the petitioner was set aside. The petitioner filed an appeal against that decree. However, even the same was dismissed. Ultimately, the petitioner lost even in regular second appeal before the High Court. As a result, the legal heirs of Bhagat Singh, have got the right over the said property. The mutation of inheritance was entered in their favour. In the meantime, father of the complainant had also expired. Hence, the property rights of the complainant, who inherited his father were put under threat. Therefore, he lodged the complaint with the police submitting that he has been defrauded by the petitioner for an amount of Rs.47.00 Lakhs.

(3.) Arguing the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the dispute involved in the case is purely of a civil nature. The complainant has already filed on 9/5/2018 a suit for recovery of his amount, stated to have been paid for purchasing this property as per the sale deed. Thereafter, the complainant has submitted the complaint to the police on 25/6/2018, which resulted in registration of the FIR. Therefore, it is submitted, that once the matter is already in civil Court, no criminal overtones can be attributed to the case. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged legal representative of Bhagat Singh, namely Gurdatar Singh had filed a complaint against the petitioner in the year 2001, wherein, even the father of the complainant was arrayed as an co-accused. However, that complaint had been dismissed by the Competent Court, finally on 17/3/2014. It is submitted that while dismissing the complaint, the trial Court has recorded that the complainant has failed to prove fabrication of the Will. It is further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in this case. The documents are already part of the record. Therefore, the petitioner deserves to be granted concession of anticipatory bail.