Allowed

Mehar Chand Saini v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Feb 2012CRM-M/33878/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted absolute bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner in an abetment to suicide case arising from a real estate fraud allegation. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Judge held that such a dispute does not automatically constitute abetment, remanding the decision to trial after investigation.

What did the court decide?

Interim pre-arrest bail converted to absolute bail; petitioner must join investigation and appear upon summons until police report submission under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

Mehar Chand Saini Vs State of Haryana — Money Laundering | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. M-33878 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 23^rd February, 2012

Mehar Chand Saini

… Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

… Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶9

Present: Ms. Tarunpreet, Advocate for Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Amandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State.

¶11

Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

¶12

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case arising out of FIR No.617 dated 23.10.2011 registered at Police Station City Ballabgarh, District Faridabad under Section 306 IPC.

¶14

In the present case, FIR has been lodged by Manish Kumar. In the FIR, he made a grievance that his father Daya Chand Chaudhary had committed suicide on 22^nd October, 2011 and a suicide note was recovered from the pocket of the dead body of Daya Chand Chaudhary.

¶15

Counsel for the State has shown me a photostat copy of the suicide note, as the original has been sent to the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert for examination. In the suicide note, it has been specifically stated that the deceased, being fed-up with the fraud and cheating perpetuated by the accused, had committed suicide. It is stated

¶16

¶17

Criminal Misc. No. M-33878 of 2011 (O&M)

¶18

that the accused had given Rs.2.00 lakh but in the agreement to sell an amount of Rs.10.00 lakh was depicted.

¶19

A Coordinate Bench of this Court, on December 12, 2011,

¶20

had passed the following order:

¶21

“Heard for some.

¶22

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to registered agreement to sell Annexure P-2 and separate receipt whereby the deceased received Rs.10,00,000/- as earnest money and executed agreement to sell his house in favour of the petitioner and got the agreement registered. The registered agreement even bears photograph of the deceased as executant. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the petitioner also got prepared bank draft dated 29.08.2011 for balance sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the deceased and attended the office of Sub-Registrar for getting the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement, but the deceased did not turn up and thereupon the petitioner affirmed affidavit Annexure P-3 regarding his presence. Photostat copy of the bank draft filed today in Court by counsel for the petitioner is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

¶23

Learned State counsel as well as counsel for complainant referred to suicide note of the deceased wherein he mentioned that the petitioner by fraud had mentioned the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, having actually paid Rs.2,00,000/- only to the deceased. It is also mentioned in the suicide note that the deceased had already paid Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner but still the petitioner was harassing and threatening the deceased and his family and demanding Rs.15,00,000/-. Photostat copy of the suicide note filed today in Court by State counsel is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

¶24

¶25

Criminal Misc. No. M-33878 of 2011 (O&M)

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suicide note would depict that the deceased admitted having executed the impugned agreement although disputed the amount of earnest money, and for the same, he could have raised civil dispute and resorted to legal remedy. It is also contended that the deceased would not have repaid Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner against loan of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is also pointed out that there is no document regarding payment of Rs.10,00,000/- by the deceased to the petitioner and the payment would not have been made without any writing when the deceased alleged that the petitioner had already played fraud upon him by getting recital of payment of Rs.10,00,000/- against actual payment of Rs.2,00,000/- in the impugned agreement and the deceased did not even take back the agreement while allegedly repaying the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶27

Adjourned to 23.02.2012.

¶28

Meanwhile, the petitioner, if arrested, shall be released on interim bail, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions specified in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He shall join investigation as and when required by the police. Presently the petitioner is directed to join the investigation on 22.12.2011 at 10.00 a.m. and continue to do so as and when required by the police.

¶29

As prayed for by counsel for the State, the petitioner is also directed to give original agreement and receipt to the investigating officer on the aforesaid date and time to enable the investigating officer to get compared the signatures of the deceased on the said agreement and receipt and if the agreement has been filed in some Court by the petitioner, he shall give the details thereof to the investigating officer.”

¶30

¶31

Criminal Misc. No. M-33878 of 2011 (O&M)

¶32

Counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Satyaveer Singh, Police Station City Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, submits that in terms of order dated 12^th December, 2011 passed by a Coordinate Bench, the petitioner had given the original agreement and the receipt to the investigating officer. He further submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation.

¶33

It has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in ‘ Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal’, 2010(1) R.A.J., 184 and ‘Gangula Mohan Reddy versus State of Andhra Pradesh’, 2010(1) Recent Apex Judgments, 106 that ordinary discord and petulance in day-to-day life are not sufficient to infer that the accused has committed an offence of abetment to suicide. To invoke Section 107 IPC for abetment, it is necessary that the accused must have incited, provoked, instigated or goaded the deceased to commit suicide. Whether offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is made out or not, is a moot point which shall be determined during the course of trial.

¶34

Hence, the present petition is accepted. The interim prearrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated December 12, 2011 is made absolute and it is ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer. However, he shall continue to appear before the investigating agency as and when called-for till filing of a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. He shall also abide by the conditions specified under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. On submission of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the petitioner shall be permitted to furnish regular bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶35

¶36

Criminal Misc. No. M-33878 of 2011 (O&M)

¶37

However, anything said in this order shall not be construed

¶38

as an expression on merits of the case.

¶39

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE

¶40

February 23, 2012 rps