Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 937 (PNJ)

Pawan Kumar v. State of Punjab

2012-07-18

PARAMJEET SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: (Oral) - The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case arising out of FIR No. 164 dated 26.5.2012, registered at Police Station Zirakpur, Mohali, under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that Jivan Garg and Prince Garg are the owners and developers of Royale Empire, Peer Muchhaila, Zirakpur. They have been placing advertisements inviting applications/ bookings for allotment of flats from various persons. The complainant and her husband got booked flat No.602 in their name and another flat bearing No.702 in the name of her brother with the said firm and in all paid more than Rs.52.00 lacs. The said amount is stated to have been paid to Jivan Garg and Prince Garg. It is further mentioned in the FIR that in February 2012, complainant and her husband contacted Jivan Garg, Prince Garg and Pawan Garg. Pawan Garg, petitioner herein, is none else but the real brother of Jivan Garg and uncle of Prince Garg. Thereafter, they came to know that the developers have abandoned the project and have cheated the complainant and various other persons to the tune of lakhs of rupees. 3. It may be mentioned here that another FIR bearing No.162 dated 24.5.2012 is already registered and pending investigation against Jivan Garg and Prince Garg containing the allegations of cheating and forgery. 4. The only plea of the petitioner is that he has no concern with the firm Royale Empire or Jivan Garg and Prince Garg even though they are in blood relations. The petitioner is not responsible for the conduct of business of the firm Royale Empire or the default of its proprietors. He further contends that he is running his own business in the name and style of Krishna Sales Corporation and the said firm is providing construction material. 5. I have considered the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner. 6. Admittedly, Jivan Garg and Pawan Garg are real brothers and it is also admitted fact that there are business transactions inter se the brothers as Pawan Garg supplies building construction material to the firm run by his brother Jivan Garg. It is the categoric assertion of the complainant that these persons had persuaded her to buy flats from them. 6. Admittedly, Jivan Garg and Pawan Garg are real brothers and it is also admitted fact that there are business transactions inter se the brothers as Pawan Garg supplies building construction material to the firm run by his brother Jivan Garg. It is the categoric assertion of the complainant that these persons had persuaded her to buy flats from them. Prima-facie, from the narration of facts mentioned in the FIR, wherein it is stated that the petitioner accompanied the complainant to the construction site and also discussed the map with her, it appears that the petitioner has business interests in the firm. Therefore, it will not be safe, at this stage, to infer that he has no complicity and involvement in the commission of offence. It is also to be determined as to whether or not the petitioner had bagged something from the amount which the complainant had paid. In these circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to ascertain as to how many other such like poor people have fell prey to the petitioner’s fraud and how much is the amount which they have been made to part with. I do not find any ground to grant anticipatory bail. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced the order dated 16.7.2012 passed by a Coordinate Bench in Crl. Misc. No.20514 of 2012 preferred by the petitioner whereby he has been granted pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.162 dated 24.5.2012. However, I do not subscribe to the view formulated by the Coordinate Bench in the order dated 16.7.2012 because the facts in both these cases are altogether different. There, in that case, the allegation against Jivan Garg and Prince Garg was to the effect that they had mortgaged Royale Empire with Indian Overseas Bank. 8. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. 9. Observations made hereinabove shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. ---------0.B.S.0------------