Allowed

Pushpinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Nov 2011CRM-M/21109/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pre-arrest bail granted in a petition challenging a case involving alleged land sale fraud. The court allowed bail subject to joining investigation and not tampering with evidence, noting the civil controversy renders custodial investigation unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner to be released on bail on conditions to join investigation and not tamper with evidence.

Pushpinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-21109 of 2011 (O&M) [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶3

CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-21109 of 2011 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: November 11, 2011

Pushpinder Singh

…..Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab

…..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶12

-.-

¶13

Present:Mr. T.S. Sangha, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Narinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. P.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab. Mr.G.S. Punia, Advocate for the complainant.

¶15

-.-

¶16

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶17

Petitioner –Pushpinder Singh seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Kirpal Singh alleging that he had agreed to sell his land measuring 8 kanals to petitioner for sale consideration of 16 lacs. A sum of 16 lacs have been paid to the petitioner but subsequently the agreement was cancelled on June 6, 2007 and a sum of ` 13 lacs were returned to the complainant. The petitioner on

¶18

Crl. Misc. No. M-21109 of 2011 (O&M) [2]

¶19

the basis of a power of attorney dated October 25, 2010 in favour of Sewa Singh got the land transferred in favour of his wife Rani. A suit for declaration has been filed by the complainant against the petitioner for a declaration that the agreement of sale dated June 28, 2005 stood cancelled on June 6, 2007. The grievance of the complainant is that during the pendency of the civil proceedings the property has been transferred by the petitioner on the basis of power of attorney of Sewa Singh in favour of his wife.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the civil suit filed by Kirpal Singh, complainant for declaration that the agreement of sale stands cancelled, stands dismissed.

¶21

Counsel for the complainant has intervened to state that an appeal is pending against the order. By way of Misc. application, additional documents were placed on record to establish that on April 9, 2004, the complainant had already entered into an agreement of sale with one Surinder Kaur on receipt of earnest money of ` 3 lacs. Said Surinder Kaur has filed suit for specific performance against the complainant. A suit for specific performance has also been filed by the petitioner against the complainant.

¶22

The crucial point which is required to be determined during trial and the civil litigation would be whether the agreement of sale dated June 28, 2006 stood cancelled vide agreement dated June 6, 2007, entailing the delivery of sum of ` 13 lacs by the petitioner. The controversy involved requires the adjudication of the matter by civil Court also. The original

¶23

Crl. Misc. No. M-21109 of 2011 (O&M)

¶24

[3]

¶25

agreement of sale does not seem to have been produced on the judicial file in civil suit by the complainant. This does not appear to be a case of custodial interrogation as the petitioner has already joined investigation. All the relevant documents are in the custody of the police.

¶26

In view of the above, the petition is allowed 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 conditions that he will join investigation as and when required by the police and that he will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner. Anything said in this order will not prejudice the rights of the complainant to recover any amount from the petitioner and anything said will not prejudice the rights of the parties to challenge the deed executed on the basis of the alleged cancelled power of attorney and agreement of sale.

¶27

November 11, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE

Pushpinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

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

Lachhwant Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Manpreet Saini Vs State of Haryana

Sukhpal Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab

Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab Th. Govt. Food Inspector

Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab Th. Govt. Food Inspector

Gulzar Mohamad Vs State of Punjab