In this anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding cheating over a false mortgage claim, the High Court dismissed the plea, holding that the petitioner's failure to redeem the mortgage and deposit funds prevented the grant of bail.
Petition dismissed; interim anticipatory bail granted vide earlier order is withdrawn.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:162788 CRM-M-17578-2022 Reserved on: December 15, 2023 Date of Decision: December 19, 2023
Rajnish Nanda
…Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab
…Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: - Ms. Naveen Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Nagra, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Kunwar Rajan, Advocate for the complainant.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
By way of this petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.79 dated 30.12.2021, under Section 420 of IPC, registered at Police Station Block Majri, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.
2.1 As per prosecution case, complaint was made by Barinda Gangta wife of Jagat Ram Thakur to the police, as per which a built up house measuring 8 Marlas was agreed to be purchased from accused Rajnish Nanda (petitioner) for consideration of 70 lacs. 20 lacs were paid as₹ ₹ earnest money. It was clearly mentioned in the agreement that petitioner was absolute and undisputed owner of house, which was free from all sorts of demands, charges, claims, liens, encumbrances etc. Revenue record was also inspected, which did not disclose any lien or encumbrances. Sale deed was executed on 30.05.2016 and balance amount of 50 lacs was paid. Physical₹ possession of the house was delivered and the complainant along with her family shifted to the house. It is in November, 2020 that officials of PNB SARITA RANI Housing Finance Ltd., Chandigarh visited the house of the complainant and 2023.12.18 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/order
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:162788
CRM-M-17578-2022
disclosed that house in question was mortgaged with the bank, as the petitioner had obtained loan from the said bank i.e., PNB Housing Finance Ltd. The complainant again visited the Tehsil office and information was provided that there was no lien marked in the name of PNB Housing Finance Ltd. Prayer was made to take action against petitioner Rajnish Nanda, his wife and officials of PNB Housing Finance Ltd.
2.2 The matter was enquired into. It was found that house in question was sold for 70 lacs. Petitioner has received the entire sale₹ consideration, as per the inquiry, but had not disclosed that he (petitioner) had borrowed an of amount 16 lacs from PNB Housing Finance Ltd. and₹ had not paid the said loan. On conclusion of the inquiry, FIR was registered. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated; that only amount of 60 lacs was paid₹ by Jagat Ram Thakur, the husband of complainant to the petitioner and that ₹10 lac was still to be paid. Instead of paying the amount of 10 lacs, a false₹ complaint has been made. 4. Vide order dated 28.04.2022, this Court issued notice of motion and in the meantime, admitted the petitioner to interim anticipatory bail with the further direction to join the investigation. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 24.05.2022, petitioner was directed take relevant instructions and to convey the Court regarding redemption of the mortgaged money. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 29.08.2022, it was informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that total outstanding as on date against the property in question was 14,05,904/- and that petitioner was having parleys with the₹ bank for one time statement and in order to show his bonafide, he was ready to deposit an amount of 5 lacs with the bank on that day itself and sought₹
Page no.2 out of 3 pages
SARITA RANI 2023.12.18 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/order
CRM-M-17578-2022
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:162788
six weeks’ time to place on record further developments. On this statement made by counsel for the petitioner, matter was adjourned to 28.10.2022. However, ever since 29.08.2022, when the statement was made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner, till date, what to talk of reaching at any settlement with the lending bank, petitioner has not even deposited an amount of 5 lacs till date, as per his undertaking. It is despite obtaining₹ repeated adjournments from this Court. In between, the matter was also referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, but the said efforts failed. Petitioner even failed to avail the last opportunity to settle the matter and is trying to just linger on the matter.
Present petition stands dismissed.
Pending application(s) if any, stand(s) disposed of.
December 19, 2023 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
Page no.3 out of 3 pages
SARITA RANI 2023.12.18 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/order
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the charges of cheating relating to property fraud.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajnish Nanda
The State of Punjab
DEEPAK GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
