Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1544 (PNJ)

Anil Kumar Deswal v. State of Haryana

2012-10-31

M.M.S.BEDI

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. M.M.S. Bedi, J.: - The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Raman Verma and Rishi Verma alleging that the document dated 14.3.2011 had been fraudulently got signed from them before Sub Registrar Rohtak and that they had received a legal notice dated 23.5.2011 from the petitioner for execution of the sale deed and came to know that the document has been got fraudulently made by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact the complainants have executed a registered agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner and that on their refusal to execute the sale deed, he had sent a legal notice on 23.5.2011. The present FIR was registered on 1.6.2011 in order to wriggle out of the liability arising out of the legal document. 3. Learned counsel for the complainant has intervened to oppose the petition for pre-arrest bail contending that a fraud has been played upon the complainants by the petitioner. It has also been urged that the amount paid by the petitioner to the complainants has been fraudulently taken back on the pretext that some machinery was required to be installed in the property in dispute. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The validity of the agreement of sale dated 14.3.2011 is apparently subject matter of the civil suit as the petitioner has already filed a suit for specific performance of the contract of agreement of sale dated 14.3.2011. It will be premature at this stage to arrive at a conclusion whether in the circumstances of the present case, the petitioner could be said to be criminally liable for forging a registered document. 5. The petitioner has already joined the investigation, as per the instructions of ASI Dharamvir Singh. The original document has already been produced in the court. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and interim order dated 24.9.2012 is hereby confirmed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, he will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition that the petitioner will join the investigation as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation.