Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 376 (PNJ)

Tresh Chand Jain v. State Of Haryana

2000-04-04

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. F.I.R. No. 247 dated 8.6.1999 has been registered at Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula under Sections 120-B, 323, 342, 352, 357, 406, 417, 418, 420, 447, 448, 449, 452, 465, 467, 506 I.P.C. on the complaint lodged by Bishamber Dayal before the learned C.J.M., who in turn, forwarded the same to the police station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The following allegations are found in the F.I.R. 2. The complainant is running a departmental store in S.C.O. 76, Sector 7, Panchkula along with his sons - Ajay and Sanjay. On 13.9.1998, the complainant and the 1st petitioner-Tresh Chand Jain entered into an agreement for sale of the said premises for a total price of Rs. 38 lakhs, out of which the complainant has paid in total Rs. 30,05,082/-. The 1st petitioner had agreed to execute the sale agreement and to transfer the said S.C.O. in the name of the complainant but, did not do so, inspite of the oral and written requests. 3. On 30.5.1999 at 7 p.m., both the petitioners - Tresh Chand Jain, Pankaj Jain and three others, armed with knives and sticks, entered the departmental store of the - Complainant, wrongfully restrained the complainant and his son - Ajay, and threatened them not to leave the store without signing some blank papers. The 1st petitioner slapped the complainant. The 1st petitioner has dishonestly and raudulently received Rs. 30,05,082/- and cheated the complainant. 4. The petitioners application for bail in anticipation of arrest was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala and, therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court for the same relief. 5. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the 1st petitioner is the allottee of S.C.O. 76; Sector 7, Panchkula and to prove the same, has produced annexure P-5, copies of the letter of allotment and the possession certificate; annexure P-7, the copy of the deed of conveyance in his favour, and has also filed his affidavit stating that he is the sole owner of the above said premises and that it is not subject to any encumberance. 7. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the complainant and others took a portion of the ground floor on rent the 1st petitioner in the year 1988, but in September, 1998, the complainant took forcible possession of the remaining ground floor portion as well as the basement, and that there was a compromise in which it was settled that the entire ground floor and the basement will be under the tenancy of the complainant with effect from 1.9.1998. According to the petitioners, the complainant paid Rs. 5 lakhs as security. The further case of the petitioners is that the complainant did not pay the rent and, therefore, a notice was sent to the complainant (copy annexure P- 1 dated 4.3.1999) terminating his tenancy, and that a suit for possession has also been filed against him on 1.4.1999 (copy of plaint annexure P-2). The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that it is thereafter that the complainant issued the notice dated 3.6.1999 (copy annexure P-3) to the 1st petitioner for specific performance, but in that notice, he did not mention anything about the incident which allegedly took place on 30.5.1999. The learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, contends that this is a false case and that the petitioners are innocent and are entitled to be released on bail. 8. But the learned counsel for the State contends that out of the total price of Rs. 38 lakhs, the complainant has paid Rs. 20 lakhs at the time of the agreement, i.e. Rs. 15 lakhs in cash and Rs. 5 lakhs by means of bank draft. He also contends that the complainant has given a further sum of Rs. 8 lakhs on 28.9.98 apart from paying Rs. 1,38,807/ - to the H.U.D.A. on behalf of the 1st petitioner. The learned counsel for the State also contends that the petitioners and others forcibly tried to get revocation deed on 30.5.1999 by entering into the shop of the complainant, and also threatened him. The learned counsel for the complainant also contends that the petitioners have created evidence to get out of the agreement to sell. Of course, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the State and the complianant that their contention is not that the 1st petitioner is not the owner of the premises. The learned counsel for the State also conceded that the petitioners have joined investigation. 9. Of course, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the State and the complianant that their contention is not that the 1st petitioner is not the owner of the premises. The learned counsel for the State also conceded that the petitioners have joined investigation. 9. Therefore, I find that as to whether there is an agreement to sell and whether the 1st petitioner has failed to perform his part of the contract, are matters to be decided in appropriate proceedings. It is a civil dispute, about which I need not make any comments at this stage. 10. But, taking into consideration the arguments put forward by both the sides but, at the same time, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case. I am of the view that the petitioners can be granted bail in anticipation of arrest. 11. The petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioners on the allegations found in the FIR mentioned in this petition, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. However, the petitioners shall abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr. P.C.