Surjit Singh vs State (U.T.)

M.L. Singhal, J.

Through Criminal Misc. No. 30722M of 1998 petitioners Surjit Singh and Darshan Singh have made prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to them in case FIR No. 128 dated 5.11.1998 under Sections 420/120B IPC, P.S. Sector 31, Chandigarh and through Crl. Misc. No. 30784M of 1998 petitioners Jarnail Singh and Sukhwinder Singh have made prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to them in FIR No. 145 dated 5.11.1998 under Sections 420/120B IPC, P.S. Sector 36, Chandigarh. This order will dispose of both these bail matters. Facts of Crl. Misc. No. 30782M of 1998 may be noticed.

On November 5, 1998, Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh wrote a letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T. Chandigarh bearing No. 1338/DC dated 5.11.1998, where through it was alleged that Narang Singh etc. residents of Village Hallo Majra and Mohinder Singh etc. residents of Village Kajheri, which fall in the Periphery of Chandigarh have been fraudulently misled by the property dealers namely Zimidara Kalghidhar, Bajwa Property Dealer and Dashmesh Property dealers and they have purchased plots through the said Property Dealers who assured them that they would not let the Administration demolish their houses. They are Mohinder Singh son of Hazara Singh, Amrik Singh son of Santokh Singh, Jatinderbir Kaur, Krishan Lal son of Chet Ram etc. They have either constructed or are in the process of construction of their houses in village Kajheri etc.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the allegations made in the FIR they had been assured by the petitioners that they would not let the Administration demolish their houses. Land was sold by registered saledeeds by the landowners to the respective purchasers. Sale agreement is only with respect to the sale of land. There is no mention in the saledeeds that there was any intention on the part of the seller or the petitioners to have the land sold for constructing houses. At the time of registration of the saledeeds when the seller and the purchasers appeared before the Naib TehsildarcumExecutive Magistrate, the purchaser was required to file an affidavit that he would not raise any unlawful construction over the said land without the prior permission of the competent authority. At the time of registration of the saledeed, the Sub Registrar informed the purchaser that he could not raise construction over the land as raising construction is not legally permissible. Assuming that the petitioners had told the purchasers to raise construction, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, no offence under Sections 420/120B IPC is made out against them (the petitioners). Land has been sold by the landowners and the petitioners have acted only as Property Dealers and have charged commission for bringing about the sale transaction between the seller and the purchaser. Petitioners have no concern with the ownership of the land in question. It was further submitted that after the registration of the FIR some of the purchasers, who purchased land through the petitioners submitted representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh, that they had purchased the land of their own and they have not been cheated.

In this case, thus the only allegation against the petitioners, is that they got the property purchased, which was situated in the periphery of Chandigarh, where raising of construction is prohibited under the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1962. According to the prosecution, the petitioners made representation to the purchasers that if they raise construction they would not allow the Administration to demolish their construction. Naib TehsildarcumExecutive Magistrate, U.T., Chandigarh registered the saledeeds. He could refuse to register the saledeeds saying that no construction would be raised within the Chandigarh periphery. Petitioners are mere property dealers. They are said to have obtained only commission for bringing out the sale transaction between the vendor and the vendee. In my opinion, when transactions of sale have taken place and have been registered by the Sub Registrar, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the investigation of their role visavis the vendors and the vendees in the culmination of the transactions of sale. Vendees ought to have known that within the Chandigarh periphery no transaction of sale could take place and no construction could be raised without the permission of the Chandigarh Administration.

It is, therefore, ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be called upon to furnish bail bonds by the Investigating Officer to his satisfaction. Petitioners shall join the investigation and keep on joining the investigation as per the directions of the Investigating Officer to be given to them in writing.

Both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are allowed.