Allowed

Ashok Mittal v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Dec 2012CRM-M/28683/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the court observed deficiencies in the investigation, including failure to contact key witnesses and the recurrence of complaints by low-rank police. The petition was allowed while directing senior officers to monitor the inquiry and ensure fairness.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner Ashok Mittal released on bail upon furnishing bonds/sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Faridabad.

Ashok Mittal Vs State of Haryana — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-28683 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-28683 of 2012 Date of decision:-04.12.2012

Ashok Mittal

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶11

Present:Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pawan Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Sidharth Sarup, DAG Haryana.

¶13

Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the complainant.

¶14

PARAMJEET SINGH J.(Oral)

¶15

This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.325 dated 24.8.2012, under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC and under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station Central, Faridabad.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the original owner of the property in question i.e. Plot No.53, Sector 21-

¶17

Criminal Misc. No. M-28683 of 2012

¶18

-2-

¶19

A, Urban Estate, Faridabad, Haryana, was Mr. Ajay Kumar. Thereafter, he sold the plot in question to Mr. Rajiv Narula. Rajiv Narula entered into an agreement dated 11.6.2010 (bearing his signature) (Annexure P-3). Clause 6 of the agreement specifically mentions that Ashok Mittal may get registered sale deed in the name of any person and he shall have no objection. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that on the same date General Power of Attorney (Annexure P-4) was executed by Rajiv Narula in favour of Ashok Mittal (present petitioner). Not only this, vide Annexure P-5, Rajiv Narula himself issued a possession letter by way of an affidavit, wherein it is mentioned that he had sold the plot to petitioner son of Shri Channilal Mittal and has given the possession of the same on 11.6.2010 to the petitioner. There is another affidavit (Annexure P-6) dated 11.6.2010, wherein he (Rajiv Narula) has specifically mentioned regarding sale of plot to Mr. Ashok Mittal(petitioner herein) and issuing General Power of Attorney in his possession. As per the terms of the agreement (Annexure P-3) it is admitted that he has received Rs.50,00,000/- out of Rs.1,37,00,000/in cash as earnest money and Rs.87,00,000/- is to be deposited in home loan. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the amount of Rs.87,00,000/- has already been deposited with the concerned bank. He also referred to (Annexure P-14), a letter dated 28.8.2012 written by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central,

¶20

Criminal Misc. No. M-28683 of 2012

¶21

-3-

¶22

Faridabad, wherein it is mentioned that the concerned authorities should collect maximum evidence against the petitioner, sufficient for his arrest but it is strange that the petitioner was already arrested by the investigating agency on 24.8.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown me an agreement dated 13.11.2005 wherein the reference to plot No.53 has been made but the said agreement has not been signed by Ashok Mittal. It is signed by one Ajay Kumar, who had already agreed to sell that very plot to Rajiv Narula and thereafter actually sold it to Rajiv Narula vide sale deed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further made reference to the complaint dated 03.5.2012 where there was no whisper regarding plot No.53. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is not even semblance of title in favour of the complainant and he said this FIR could not have been filed. Learned counsel further contends that even Rajiv Narula has not visited the country for joining the investigation.

¶23

Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has made a specific reference to sale agreement dated 13.11.2005 where the plot in question was agreed to be sold to complainant and Rajiv Narula. The complainant pointed out the detail of payments as under :-

¶24

(i) Rs.10,00,000/- vide Cheque No.199911 dated 13.11.2005. (ii) Rs.15,00,000/- vide Cheque No.199910 dated

¶25

Criminal Misc. No. M-28683 of 2012

¶26

-4-

¶27

24.11.2005.

¶28

(iii) Rs.88,000/- vide Cheque No.213247 dated 16.01.2006.

¶29

(iv) Rs.10,00,000/- vide P.O. No.113915 dated 16.01.2006 drawn on PNB, NIT, Faridabad.

¶30

(v) Rs.20,45,000/- vide P.O. No.600795 dated 18.01.2006 drawn on OBC, NIT, Faridabad.

¶31

(vi) Rs.12,00,000/- vide P.O. No.677927 dated 18.01.2006 drawn on ING, Vaysa Bank, NIT, Faridabad.”

¶32

Further states that for these reasons the complainant is only aggrieved person. Learned counsel for the complainant contends that so far as objection regarding filing of the complaint is concerned, it is settled principle of law that anyone can set the criminal law in motion. Learned counsel has also referred to affidavit of Rajiv Narula, which has been notarized on 23.09.2011. The said affidavit does not bear signature of Rajiv Narula. Still the learned counsel for the complainant states that this is forged and fabricated document. Learned counsel for the complainant contends that on the basis of this affidavit the petitioner has applied for transfer of the plot and the HUDA authorities had transferred the plot. Further submits that registered sale deed dated 26.9.2011 ( Annexure P-9) is a manual document, whereas on the same very date all other documents were registered by using process of the computer and contends that the said sale deed was got registered by petitioner in connivance with registering authorities.

¶33

Criminal Misc. No. M-28683 of 2012

¶34

-5-

¶35

I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for

¶36

the parties.

¶37

So far as the agreements to sell, execution of GPA and the affidavits are concerned, the same are not in dispute. The dispute has arisen after the transfer has been carried out by the HUDA allegedly on the basis of the affidavit, which does not bear signature of by Rajiv Narula. On that basis, this document is alleged to be forged and fabricated document. This Court is of the view that any document, which is unsigned cannot be treated as forged and fabricated document, although it is shown to be attested by the Notary. This document cannot be read into evidence for any purpose including that of transfer of the property. Furthermore, I have considered the fact with regard to the execution of the sale deeds and its valuation as mentioned in the sale agreement and in sale deed. This is a common practice that sale deed is executed not according to the actual value of the property, but is executed as per Collector rate fixed, which is generally lower than actual price. Otherwise also sometimes there is variations in valuation and devaluation of the property during the interregnum between the date of agreement to sell and execution of sale deed.

¶38

The only issue in instant petition is whether the petitioner should be allowed regular bail. Petitioner is in custody since 24.8.2012 and the challan has been presented in parts and a part of

¶39

Criminal Misc. No. M-28683 of 2012

¶40

-6-

¶41

the investigation is yet to be completed by the investigating officer. I have perused the police file. A perusal of the police file reveals that the police authority so far has not issued any letter to the authorities in Australia or to the Rajiv Narula for joining investigation. Furthermore, it appears that they have also not made any effort to join the concerned officer of HUDA, who transferred the property. It appears that the investigating authorities are under the influence of someone because the senior officer of HUDA including the Estate Officer, who is competent officer, may be involved in this case. The FIR was registered on 24.8.2012 but till date no substantial explanation has been furnished that why they have not been able to contact the officer, who had effected the transfer. Learned State counsel after seeking instructions from SI Sube Singh states that the entire record pertaining to the plot in question was taken into custody and has been annexed with the challan. It is strange that inspite of the fact that they have taken away the record from HUDA but they have not asked the officer concerned to join the investigation. In these circumstances, it appears that the attitude of the police for conducting fair and impartial investigation can be questioned. In such cases the investigations are required to be monitored by the senior officers specially by the Superintendent of Police or the Commissioner of Police of concerned districts. Prima facie the Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served to retain the

¶42

Criminal Misc. No. M-28683 of 2012

¶43

-7-

¶44

petitioner behind the bars because the investigation may take much more time.

¶45

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed. Petitioner-Ashok Mittal is ordered to be released on bail, on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Faridabad.

¶46

Copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police and the Chief Administrator HUDA to look into the matter and efforts should be made in such cases that the investigation should be fair and impartial and some senior officers like DSP or ACP be appointed to look into these type of cases. It is very strange that in the present case the Investigating Officer is not present to assist the State counsel, only a Sub Inspector has been sent.

¶47

December 04, 2012 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

Ashok Mittal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Mittal v. State of Haryana

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

Raj Kumari Vs Satnam Singh and Anr.

Gurmit Sinh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Ajaib Singh Vs State of Punjab

Lakhan Vs State of Haryana

Rajbir and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Ranjit Singh Vs Avtar Singh and Another