Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1070 (PNJ)

Vijay Khanna v. State Of Punjab

2001-10-03

NIRMAL SINGH

body2001
Judgment Nirmal Singh, J. 1. This order will dispose of Crl. Misc. Nos. 14283-M of 2001 and 11947-M of 2001 arising out of FIR No. 44 of 2001 at P.S. Islamabad, District Amritsar under Sections 419/420/467//468/471/120-B IPC for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. The allegations of the prosecution are that Rajan Khanna, petitioner forged the power of attorney of his brother, Parveen Khanna, who is residing in U.K. Thereafter, Rajan Khanna sold the plot to his nephews wife, Mrs. Promila Khanna vide two sale deeds dated 7.9.1998 and 2.2.1999. He also forged the agreement to sell alleged to have been executed by Parveen Khanna on 25.4.1993. 3. Shri R.S. Cheema senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that Parveen Khanna used to send some blank papers to his brother Rajan Khanna, which were used by him. He submitted that this fact is clear from the FIR. He further submitted that dispute between the parties are of civil nature. Rajan Khanna has filed a suit for specific performance against his brother Parveen Khanna on the basis of agreement to sell. He further submitted that Parveen Khanna has also filed a suit against Promila Khanna and one Dr. Kuldip Rai, the subsequent vendor. He also submitted that these suits were filed prior to the lodging of the FIR. 4. On the other hand, learned DAG assisted by Shri D.S. Pheruman, Advocate submitted that Rajan Khanna has forged the power of attorney of Parveen Khanna. He submitted that Rajan Khanna had cheated none else but his own brother and has shaken the faith of a brother. He submitted that Parveen Khanna left for U.K. on 25.4.1993. Since then, he never visited India. He further submitted that prosecution has collected evidence to this effect in the shape of travelling documents i.e. pasport of Parveen Khanna showing that he never came to India after 25.4.1993 and has not executed any power of attorney in favour of Rajan Khanna, he submitted that Rajan Khanna to cheat his brother firstly executed a sale deed in favour of Promila Khanna his nephews wife. He also submitted that Promila Khanna intentionally and knowingly got the sale deed executed in her favour. He submitted that Promila Khanna was aware that Parveen Khanna never came to India after 25.4.1993 and has not executed any power of attorney in favour of Rajan Khanna. He also submitted that Promila Khanna intentionally and knowingly got the sale deed executed in her favour. He submitted that Promila Khanna was aware that Parveen Khanna never came to India after 25.4.1993 and has not executed any power of attorney in favour of Rajan Khanna. He submitted that the sale deed executed in favour of Promila Khanna is a sham trensaction. He pointed out that before the Sub Registrar, at the time of executing the sale deed by Rajan Khanna as attorney of Parveen Khanna, no sale consideration was paid by Promila Khanna. He submitted Promila Khanna has paid sale consideration to Parveen Khanna, the owner of the property. He further submitted that Promila Khanna knowing that the sale deed executed in her favour is a forged document, got it transferred in favour of one Dr. Kuldip Rai the agreement to sell has been attested by Vijay Khanna husband of Promila Khanna. He submitted Rajan Khanna Promila Khanna and Vijay Khanna have cheated Parveen Khanna, complainant who is residing in U.K. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The prosecution collected evidence that Parveen Khanna left India on 25.4.1998 and after that he never visited India. The power of attorney has been registered in India by impersonating some other person in place of Parveen Khanna. The agreement to sell has also been executed in the absence of Parveen Khanna. The parties are closely related to each other. They were aware about the act of Rajan Khanna and also aware that Parveen Khanna never visited India. In such like cases, custodial interrogation is necessary as it has been held by the Apex Court in State Rep. by the C.B.I v. Anil Sharma JT, 1997(7) SC 651, which reads as under :- "that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for such an argument can be advanced by all accused presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders. High Court has approached the issue as though it was considering a prayer for granting regular bail after arrest. Learned single Judge of the High Court reminded himself of the principle that "it is well-settled that bail and not jail is a normal course." 7. In view of the above, no case is made out to issue any direction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Hence this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.