Allowed

Maninder Kaur v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Dec 2013CRM-M/20421/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail for offences of cheating and forgery under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC arising from a familial property dispute. While forged will existed, no application by petitioner was found to effect property transfer. Bail granted with direction to cooperate in investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail allowed; impugned order dated 27.06.2013 made absolute; directed to join investigation.

Maninder Kaur Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Criminal Misc.No.M-20421 of 2013

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No.M-20421 of 2013 Date of Decision: 17^th December, 2013

Maninder Kaur

.. Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

.. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Ajaivir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.K.S.Pannu, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr.Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶14

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

¶15

Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner Maninder Kaur who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 420, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.98, dated 30.5.2013, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Tarn Taran.

¶16

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Smt.Jasbir Kaur, is the mother-in-law of the petitioner. The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with Varinder on 24.06.2001. Two sons were born out of the said wedlock. In an unfortunate accident, Varinder died on 20.02.2007. The said incident brought the whole family into litigation and the dispute has flared up to the extent that mother-in-law (complainant) lodged the present FIR against her own widowed daughter-in-law with the allegations that she forged a will

¶17

Sharma Seema 2013.12.19 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

{2}

¶19

Criminal Misc.No.M-20421 of 2013

¶20

and further moved a false application before the concerned Patwari alleging that her father-in-law and mother-in-law were no more and even she was issueless and therefore, the property lying in the name of her husband, Varinder, be transferred in her name, i.e in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner forged one unregistered will and thereafter she got the same registered by mentioning wrong facts before the Joint Sub Registrar, Jhabaal, District Tarn Taran.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that civil dispute amongst the complainant and the petitioner has resulted into the registration of the present case. The petitioner had filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against the complainant and other family members and also filed a suit for permanent injunction so that the complainant and other members of the family might not interfere into her peaceful possession of the property. Even the complainant filed a civil suit challenging the validity of the will. He further contends that in compliance of the interim directions issued by this Court, the petitioner did join the investigation and co-operated with the Investigating Agency, therefore, the petitioner deserves the concession of anticipatory bail.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Ranjit Singh, Police Station, Sadar, Tarn Taran, very fairly concedes that the petitioner did join the investigation but she failed to supply the will and other documents allegedly forged by her and as such, she is not entitled to bail.

¶23

Learned counsel for the complainant has also vehemently

¶24

Sharma Seema 2013.12.19 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

Criminal Misc.No.M-20421 of 2013

¶26

{3}

¶27

opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶28

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

¶29

On a specific query, learned counsel for the State very fairly concedes that the forged Wills allegedly fabricated by the petitioner were not used for getting the property transferred in her name. The only allegation against the petitioner which remains to be adjudicated for the purpose of deciding the present application is as to whether she moved an application before the concerned Patwari for getting the property transferred in her name. This allegation is also based upon a photostat copy of application. The Investigating Agency has failed to find out or recover the original of such application. During investigation, it has come on record that the petitioner did not move an application before the Patwari for getting the property transferred in her name. Prima facie, it appears that the civil dispute has been turned into a criminal litigation. The petitioner has joined the investigation and as such, in the considered opinion of this Court, her custodial interrogation is not required by the Investigating Agency.

¶30

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed. Interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 27.06.2013 are made absolute.

¶31

The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when required to do so and abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 438(2), Cr.P.C.

¶32

December 17, 2013

¶33

(Naresh Kumar Sanghi)

¶34

Sharma Seema 2013.12.19 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶35

Criminal Misc.No.M-20421 of 2013

{4}

Judge

seema

Sharma Seema 2013.12.19 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Maninder Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maninder Kaur 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

Manoj Kumar Vs Sheetal and Ors.

Manoj Kumar and Ors. Vs Sheetal and Ors.

Mamta Rani Vs State of Punjab

Gurpreet Kaur Vs Bikramjit Singh and Ors.

Balkar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Tarun & Anr. Vs State of Haryana