VIKRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C for issuance of directions to the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/Officer-In-Charge/SHO, Police Station NRI, District Amritsar, to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or surrender in case of FIR No.12 dated 11.09.2019, registered under Sections 406, 420, 120-B, IPC registered at Police Station NRI, District Amritsar.

(2.) The FIR in the case has come on the basis of e-mail sent by the complainant to the Additional Director General of Police, NRI Wing, Punjab, in which it was alleged that the complainant was permanent resident of Malaysia. However, he was having some ancestral property in India as well. His children were studying in India for their MBBS Degree and at that point of time, the petitioner represented to the complainant that a company was intending to purchase the parcels of land which were owned by the mother and wife of the petitioner and the wife of the complainant. For that purposes, the complainant asked his wife to execute a Power of Attorney in favour of son of the complainant, so that the deal could be finalized, as was represented by the petitioner. Subsequently, although the land owned by wife of the complainant was sold out for a sum of Rs.2,63,52000/-. However, the complainant/his wife/ children were paid only an amount of Rs.1,40,00,000/- in total. The balance amount has been misappropriated by the petitioner and his family members. On the basis of these allegations, the FIR has been lodged.

(3.) Arguing the case for the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a civil dispute, which could have been raised before the civil Court, however, no civil suit has been filed by the complainant so far. There is delay of eight years in lodging the FIR, therefore, the present FIR has been lodged by way of misuse of the process of law. Still further, it is submitted that even if there is a dispute of payment between the parties, the police are not supposed to act as a recovery agent for the complainant. It is also submitted that the petitioner is neither a vendee nor the witness or signatory to any proceedings qua any sale of the property from the chunk of the complainant or his wife. Hence, the petitioner has no concern, whatsoever, with the payment of amount, as such.