Disposed

Pankaj Vashisht v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Oct 2011CRM-M/13580/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous matter regarding a cheating allegation against a property dealer, the Single Judge held that custody is not required. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer and joined the investigation under specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear before Investigating Officer on 31.10.2011; custody not ordered.

Pankaj Vashisht Vs State of Punjab — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Criminal Misc.-M No. 13580 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.-M No. 13580 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 17.10.2011

Pankaj Vashisht

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

..Respondent

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶11

Present: Mr. B.S. Sra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the complainant.

¶12

RAJESH BINDAL, J.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Kamaljit Shoor on the basis of power of attorney executed in his favour by his wife Shashi Bala had agreed to sell the property in question to the petitioner on 7.4.2008 and on the basis thereof he had further sold the property to the complainant. Sale deed was got executed by Ashok Kumar attorney of Kamaljit Shoor on 5.1.2009. The petitioner is merely a property dealer. There was no entry in the revenue record regarding the property in question being mortgaged to secure the loan. As he was not in knowledge thereof, he is a bona fide purchaser.

¶14

On the other hand, learned counsels for the State and the complainant submitted that the petitioner being a property dealer should have been vigilant. He should have enquired about the status of the property as to whether it was free from all encumbrances or not. The complainant had been cheated. The petitioner, to whom consideration was paid for purchase of plot, is guilty of cheating.

¶15

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that agreement to sell was executed in favour of the petitioner by Kamaljit Shoor regarding the property, which was mortgaged with the Bank but

¶16

Criminal Misc.-M No. 13580 of 2011

¶17

¶18

there was no entry in the revenue record regarding that, in my opinion, the petitioner is not required to be taken into custody for interrogation. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 31.10.2011 at 10.00 a.m. to join investigation and in case of arrest, he shall be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for further investigation. He shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

¶19

The petition stands disposed of.

¶20

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE

¶21

17.10.2011 sharmila

Pankaj Vashisht v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Vashisht v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaushalpal & Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Sandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Prem Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Gurdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Shashi Bala and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of Haryana