Allowed

Hans Raj Dhall v. Ut of Chandigarh

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Jul 2012CRM-M/12980/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an 86-year-old man summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. in a cheating case, sought pre-arrest bail. The court found him innocent during investigation and granted bail due to his age and lack of need for custody, making the interim order absolute.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; order dated 4.5.2012 passed by the Court made absolute; petitioner granted bail.

Hans Raj Dhall Vs Ut of Chandigarh — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-12980 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-12980 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : July 4^th 2012

Hans Raj Dhall

.... Petitioner

Versus

State (Union Territory, Chandigarh) and another

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present Mr. J.S.Mehndiratta , Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for U.T. Chandigarh.

¶14

Mr. Naveen Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent no.2/complainant.

¶15

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶16

Hans Raj Dhall, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.64 dated 22.2.2006 at Police Station Sector-34, Chandigarh for an offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is 86 years old. According to him, an agreement of sale was executed between him and the complainant in the year 1992. He has submitted that the nephew of the complainant had cheated the complainant of her money and did not even pay any amount to the

¶18

Crl. Misc. No.M-12980 of 2012

¶19

¶20

petitioner. According to him, in the year 2006, the complainant lodged this FIR and she has filed a civil suit on 9.6.2004.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the police duly investigated the case and found the petitioner to be innocent. According to him, the police placed the name of the petitioner in column No. 2 of the final report and now he has been summoned under the provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C. by the trial court. He has further submitted that in pursuance of the orders dated 4.5.2012 passed by this court, the petitioner has appeared before the trial court and has been admitted to interim bail.

¶22

Learned counsel representing Union Territory, Chandigarh has submitted, on the other hand, that the complainant is a poor widow and she had invested her entire savings as well as the compensation received on the death of her husband from a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and that she has been cheated by the petitioner of all her money. According to him, the petitioner had colluded with the nephew of the complainant and he has cheated her in collusion with that person.

¶23

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted, on the other hand, that the agreement itself is fraudulent because the agreement is stated to be of 25.7.1992 while it was reduced to writing on the stamp papers purchased on 1.8.1992. He has also supported the submissions made by learned counsel represent Union Territory, Chandigarh.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted to clarify the aforesaid anomaly of the agreement being of 25.7.1992 and being drawn on the stamp papers purchased on 1.8.1992 that the agreement was

¶25

Crl. Misc. No.M-12980 of 2012

¶26

¶27

orally entered into on 25.7.1992 and it was reduced to writing on 1.8.1992. According to him, this anomaly is not on a material point involved in this case. The material point is that agreement of sale is there and the petitioner claims that the agreed sale consideration was not paid to him.

¶28

On the one hand, the case of the petitioner is that he was not paid the sale consideration and on the other hand, the case is that the complainant paid the entire sale consideration to her nephew. The fact remains that during investigation, the police found the petitioner to be innocent and did not send him for trial. The bail is sought at the stage when the case is under trial. The custody of the petitioner is not required for investigation. The other facts to be kept in view are that the complainant never filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale and that the suit filed by her on 9.6.2004 is for possession of the property in question.

¶29

In these circumstances, looking to the age of the petitioner as also the other facts, I find him to be entitled to bail. Hence, the petition is allowed and the order dated 4.5.2012 passed by this court is made absolute.

¶30

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶31

July 4^th , 2012 som

Hans Raj Dhall v. Ut of Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hans Raj Dhall v. Ut of Chandigarh

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

Vishwa Shakti Mahajan and Another Vs State of Haryana

Varinder Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Harjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rajwant Kaur Vs R.S. Patial and Others

Jasvir @ Jassu Vs State of Haryana

Surender @ Samunder Vs State of Haryana