Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 732 (PNJ)

Gayatri Devi v. State of Haryana

2015-04-27

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

body2015
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.:- 1. Prayer in this application is for setting aside the order, dated 07.08.2013, Annexure R/1, whereby the relief of anticipatory bail was granted to the non-applicant-petitioner, Gayatri Devi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that applicant-informant Rajpal presented an application before the Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon, and the same was marked to Economic Offences Wing, Gurgaon. It was averred that Anil Verma and his wife Gayatri (non-applicant-petitioner) entered into a written agreement dated 21.03.2012 to sell their plot measuring 84 sq.yard for a consideration of ` 43,50,000/- (Rupees forty-three lacs and fifty thousand only) and both of them received ` 8,50,000/- (Rupees eight lacs and fifty thousand only) as earnest money from the applicant-informant- Rajpal. The target date to execute the sale deed was 20.06.2012. The non-applicant petitioner and her husband did not come present in the Office of Sub Registrar for getting the sale deed registered on the target date, however they assured that the sale deed would be executed on 21.06.2012. The applicant-informant remained waiting for the non-applicant-petitioner and her husband for the whole day but they did not come to the Office of Sub Registrar on 21.06.2012. On verification the applicant-informant learnt that the non-applicant-petitioner and her husband had sold 42 Sq.yards land out of the demised premises to other persons and on his pointing out, the accused persons fraudulently refused to return the earnest money or to get the sale deed registered in favour of the applicant-informant. Even the accused persons threatened the applicant-informant to implicate him in false cases. At the time of entering into the agreement, the applicant informant had put his lock on the shutters existing at the entrance of the plot, but later on the same was removed by the accused persons. The applicant-informant had spent about ` 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lac and fifty thousand only) for obtaining no objection certificate from the Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon. 3. On the basis of the above complaint, FIR No. 720, dated 17.12.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 and 506, IPC, was registered at Police Station, City Gurgaon. 4. The non-applicant petitioner-Gayatri Devi moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.02.2013. 5. The non-applicant-petitioner Gayatri Devi filed a petition bearing CRM-M-6883-2013 for grant of anticipatory bail before this Court. 6. 4. The non-applicant petitioner-Gayatri Devi moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, which was dismissed vide order dated 23.02.2013. 5. The non-applicant-petitioner Gayatri Devi filed a petition bearing CRM-M-6883-2013 for grant of anticipatory bail before this Court. 6. During the course of arguments of the said petition, learned counsel for the non-applicant-petitioner Gayatri Devi submitted that he had instructions from his client to make a statement before this court that the petitioner would transfer half share of the disputed property in favour of the informant-Rajpal within two months from that date, i.e. 07.08.2013. 7. The above submission suffered by the learned counsel for the non-applicant-petitioner was accepted by the learned counsel for the applicant-informant. The State counsel on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties, stated that he had no objection if the petition for grant of bail was accepted. 8. In view of the statement suffered by learned counsel for the non-applicant-petitioner the petition for anticipatory bail was allowed. Last paragraph of the order dated 07.08.2013 reads as under:- "It is made clear that in consonance with the statement suffered by the counsel for the petitioner if the 1/2 share of the impugned property is not transferred in favour of the complainant, within the stipulated period, then the complainant/investigating agency would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail." 9. The notice of the present petition for cancellation of bail was issued and in consequence thereof, the learned counsel for the non-applicant-petitioner as well as learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Haryana have put in appearance. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant-informant submits that despite the fact that one year and approximately eight months have passed from the date of passing of the order dated 07.08.2013, whereby the non-applicant-petitioner had undertaken to transfer half of the share of the property in question in favour of the applicant-informant within two months, he has failed to honour the statement suffered before this Court. He further submits that the non-applicant-petitioner has not only betrayed the applicant-informant but has also obtained the favourable orders by making incorrect statement and, as such, the anticipatory bail granted vide order dated 07.08.2013 is liable to be set aside and he (petitioner) be also directed to be prosecuted for committing the contempt of Court. 11. He further submits that the non-applicant-petitioner has not only betrayed the applicant-informant but has also obtained the favourable orders by making incorrect statement and, as such, the anticipatory bail granted vide order dated 07.08.2013 is liable to be set aside and he (petitioner) be also directed to be prosecuted for committing the contempt of Court. 11. Learned counsel for the State submits that the counsel for the State had given his no objection for grant of bail only on the premise that the parties had sorted out their dispute and effected a compromise. The terms and conditions of the order, dated 07.08.2013 have not been complied with by the non applicant-petitioner and, as such, the order granting anticipatory bail may be set aside. 12. Learned counsel for the non-applicant-petitioner very fairly concedes that in compliance of the statement suffered by the learned counsel for the non-applicant-petitioner on 07.08.2013, the half share of the property in question has not been transferred in favour of the applicant-informant. However, he submits that the remaining amount which was to be paid to the non-applicant-petitioner was not paid by the informant and hence he failed to honour the statement suffered before this Court. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record. 14. It is an admitted fact that while passing of the order dated 07.08.2013, learned counsel for the non-applicant petitioner after taking instructions from the petitioner, had stated at bar that he (petitioner) would transfer half share of the disputed property in favour of the informant- Rajpal within two months from the passing of the order. Concededly, the non applicant-petitioner has failed to honour the said statement. The no objection was granted by the learned counsel for the State only on the basis that the non-applicant-petitioner had suffered a statement that half share of the disputed property would be transferred in favour of the informant Rajpal. Similarly, the learned counsel for the informant had also agreed that if the half portion of the disputed property was transferred in his (informant) favour then he had no objection in grant of anticipatory bail to non-applicant-petitioner. 15. It is true that the Court has to adopt different parameters at the time of grant of bail and cancellation of bail. Similarly, the learned counsel for the informant had also agreed that if the half portion of the disputed property was transferred in his (informant) favour then he had no objection in grant of anticipatory bail to non-applicant-petitioner. 15. It is true that the Court has to adopt different parameters at the time of grant of bail and cancellation of bail. However, if the Court comes to conclusion that the order granting bail was obtained by making wrong statement with an intention to fleece the informant or the Court, in that eventuality the concession of bail granted to the accused can be withdrawn. While deciding this petition for cancellation of bail, this Court is also conscious of the fact that at the time of consideration of the cancellation of bail, the Court cannot act as an Executing Court of the compromise so effected between the parties. 16. In CRM-M-15080-2013 titled as Smt. Deepa Das vs The State of West Bengal & 5 others, decided on 21.11.2013, Hon'ble the Culcutta High Court held that if orders are obtained on the basis of a fraud played on the Court they can be set aside at any stage. 17. The conduct of the non-applicant-petitioner shows that she along with her husband entered into an agreement to sell a plot measuring 84 Sq.yards in favour of the applicant-informant and charged `8,50,000/- (Rupees eight lacs and fifty thousand only) as earnest money but failed to execute the sale deed on the target date. The case was registered and when the petition for anticipatory bail came for consideration before this Court, then after taking instructions from the non-applicant-petitioner, her counsel stated at bar that half share of the disputed property would be transferred in favour of the applicant-informant within two months of the passing of the order dated 07.08.2013. It is also apposite to mention here that after entering into an agreement with the applicant-informant, the non-applicant petitioner had sold half share of the disputed property to Pooja and Sudha Kumari. The sequence of events available on record very clearly shows that non-applicant-petitioner had ab-initio mala fide intention to commit cheating etc. The concession of anticipatory bail dated 07.08.2013 granted by this Court on the basis of false statement suffered by the non-applicant-petitioner is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside. 18. The sequence of events available on record very clearly shows that non-applicant-petitioner had ab-initio mala fide intention to commit cheating etc. The concession of anticipatory bail dated 07.08.2013 granted by this Court on the basis of false statement suffered by the non-applicant-petitioner is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside. 18. Learned counsel for the State on instructions from SI Satya Narain of Police Station, City-I, Gurgaon, submits that charge-sheet (report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.) has not been presented so far against the non-applicant-petitioner and, as such, the Investigating Officer, if so advised, may arrest the non applicant-petitioner and proceed further with the investigation as per law. 19. Disposed of.