- (1.) THIS order will dispose of aforesaid petitions filed by petitioners Sarita Rani wife of Vijay Kumar and Vijay Kumar son of Mohan Lal as these have arisen out of FIR No.30 dated 01.03.2014 registered in Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana for offence punishable under Sections 420 & 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). Notice of motion in CRM -M -10186 -2014. Mr.Param Preet Singh Paul, DAG, Punjab already appeared in CRM -M -10026 -2014 accepts notice. Mr.J. S.Dhaliwal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant.
(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of these petitions are that the instant FIR has been got registered by Jaspal Singh son of Sulkhan Singh resident of Ludhiana against Ranjit Singh, Malkit Singh, Surjit Singh sons of Ram Lok @ Ram Singh and the present petitioners namely Vijay Kumar and Sarita Rani, admittedly the husband and wife on the allegations that Ranjit Singh, Malkit Singh and Surjit Singh agreed to sell land measuring approximately 23 kanals 12 malras situated in village Sangowal to the complainant @ Rs.1,38,00,000/ - per acre on 18.05.2011. They received Rs.5 lacs in the presence of witnesses, another amount of Rs.40 lacs on 09.06.2011. The complainant filed a suit for injunction against vendors which was statedly compromised on 04.08.2011 and as per the compromise, the sellers agreed to execute the sale deed by increasing the rate of land from Rs.1,38,00,000/ - per acre to Rs.1,73,00,000/ - and the compromise deed dated 04.08.2011 was produced in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana. Another amount of Rs.25 lacs was received by the vendors on 26.09.2011 and an endorsement to this effect was made on the back side of the agreement. The sellers received total amount of Rs.1,30,00,000/ - from the complainant party. It is further alleged that the sellers in connivance with the present petitioners played a fraud against the complainant and land measuring 23 kanals 12 marlas earlier agreed to be sold to the complainant was sold in favour of M/s JLD Estates Pvt.Ltd. through its Director Vijay Kumar (petitioner herein)through vasika No.606, 607 dated 17.04.2013 and vasika No.6516 dated 24.08.2012 despite all the accused knowing it well that the sellers have already received a huge amount of Rs.1,30,00,000/ - from the complainant on the basis of agreement to sell.
(3.) COUNSEL representing the petitioners Mr.Akshay Bhan has submitted that even if the allegations set up by the complainant are accepted as correct on its face value, the complainant can take recourse to proceedings before the civil Court seeking specific performance of the said agreement and in case he is successful in proving the agreement of sale in his favour prior to agreement to sell in favour of the petitioners, the sale transaction in favour of petitioner Vijay Kumar may be held invalid keeping in view the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. It is further argued that the complainant can also seek setting aside the sale deeds executed by the sellers in favour of Vijay Kumar petitioner but in place of resorting to appropriate proceedings before the civil Court, the complainant has launched criminal proceedings to be used as a pressure tactic. According to counsel, Vijay Kumar, one of the Directors of M/s JLD Estates Pvt.Ltd. paid the entire sale consideration for execution of sale deeds through bank. It is further argued that the case is based upon documents, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required and they are ready to face proceedings, in accordance with law. Counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners with the submissions that the petitioners are a party to the criminal conspiracy between the proposed vendors and the petitioners to cause a huge loss to the complainant who parted with an amount of Rs.1,30,00,000/ - in favour of the sellers in regard to purchase of land subject matter of agreement dated 18.05.2011 and the petitioners, directors of M/s JLD Estates Pvt.Ltd. despite knowledge of the agreement in favor of the complainant and payment of huge amount to the sellers still agreed to purchase the said land at reduced price reflected in the sale deeds with a fraudulent and malafide intent to cause wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss not only to the complainant but also the State Exchequer. It is further submitted that mere fact that the complainant has remedy under the civil law does not absolve the petitioners of their criminal liability to be party to the fraud jointly committed by the petitioners and non -applicants. It is further argued that in view of gravity of the allegations against the petitioners, they do not deserve to be extended benefit of pre -arrest bail a concession to be allowed by the Court.;