Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 936 (PNJ)

Balraj Miglani v. State of U. T. Chandigarh

2012-07-18

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Naresh Kumar Sanghi J.: (Oral) - The prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to Balraj Miglani, who has been booked alongwith his daughter Aarti Verma and son-in-law Rakesh Verma by the Economic Offence Wing, Sector 17, Chandigarh, for the offences punishable under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120-B, IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Amit Mahajan (complainant) alleged that Rakesh Verma and his wife Aarti Verma were owners of House No.220, Sector 16, Chandigarh. Amit Mahajan was interested to purchase the said house. Ramesh Verma and Aarti Verma executed an agreement to sell dated 20.11.2010 in favour of Amit Mahajan in respect of the above stated house for a total sale consideration of Rs.11.01,00,000/-. He was assured that the property in question was free from all sorts of encumbrances. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- as earnest money on the day of execution of the agreement, Rs.2,00,00,000/- on 25.12.2010 and Rs.2,50,00,000/- on 15.3.2011 to Rakesh Verma and Aarti Verma. Repeatedly, the last date for execution of agreement and registration of the sale deed was postponed. When a notice was pasted by a bank on the house in question, then the complainant learnt that a loan amounting to Rs.14,63,00,000/- was due and Rakesh Verma and Aarti Verma had mortgaged the whole share of the said property to the bank and therefore, deceitfully received Rs.6,50,00,000/- from the complainant. 3. Rakesh Verma and his wife Aarti Verma were arrested and after completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been presented before the learned Area Magistrate for their prosecution. 4. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner is 80 years old, weak and infirm person, who is not in a position to even walk properly and has been suffering from so many age related ailments. He further submits that even if the contents of the whole FIR are taken at its face value, then also no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner. He further contends that concededly complainant, Amit Mahajan, had not paid even a single penny to the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner has been involved just to widen the array of the accused and also to put more pressure on Rakesh Verma and Aarti Verma, the co-accused of the petitioner, so that they may come forward to settle their score with the complainant. He further submits that petitioner has been involved just to widen the array of the accused and also to put more pressure on Rakesh Verma and Aarti Verma, the co-accused of the petitioner, so that they may come forward to settle their score with the complainant. The learned counsel further contends that it is merely a case of breach of contract, which would not disclose commission of any criminal offence. He also contends that petitioner is resident of Delhi and there is no occasion for him to be present at the time of execution of the agreement between the complainant and his coaccused. On the strength of the above, he prays that the petitioner may be granted the concession of the anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail to him. They submit that the petitioner was instrumental in gaining the confidence of the complainant to enter into the agreement with Rakesh Verma and his wife, Aarti Verma. They further submit that the petitioner assured the complainant that the house in question was free from all encumbrances, therefore, the complainant entered into a deal with the co-accused of the petitioner to purchase the house. They further submit that the amount so received by Ramesh Verma and Aarti Verma has to be recovered from the petitioner, therefore, his custodial interrogation is required. 6. Heard. 7. I have considered the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record. 8. A specific question was put to learned counsel for the State to show the material available on police file regarding the payment of the amount to the petitioner by the complainant. In reply thereto, learned counsel representing the Union Territory, Chandigarh, submitted that there was no material to show that any amount was ever paid to the petitioner. The learned counsel representing the State after taking instructions from the investigating officer further admitted that during the interrogation of Rakesh Verma and Aarti Verma, nothing had come on record to conclude that they had handed over the whole or part of the amount, which was received from the complainant by them, to the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to be 80 years old and suffering from various aged related ailments. The petitioner is stated to be 80 years old and suffering from various aged related ailments. His custodial interrogation is not worth in this case. There are no allegation against the petitioner that he received the disputed amount from the complainant or any other person. 9. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner, Balraj Miglani son of late Shri P.L. Miglani, he would be released on bail subject to his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. The petitioner shall abide by all the conditions laid in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 10. The criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------