Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 4168
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Daya Chaudhary, J.
O.P. Chhabra - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 13735 of 2018
Decided On : 03-12-2018
Ashwani Bhardwaj, Adv., Tanushree Gupta, Adv., Gurinder S Sandhu, Adv.
The need for the accused to cooperate in the investigation for the grant of anticipatory bail.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Property Dispute - Section 438 Cr.P.C. - 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 438 Cr.P.C., Section 420 IPC, Section 467 IPC, Section 468 IPC, Section 471 IPC, Section 506 IPC - The court discussed the nature of allegations, role of the petitioner, and the requirement for custodial interrogation to unearth the modus operandi adopted by the accused in forging documents. The court referred to the judgment in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2015) 8 JT 125 and emphasized the need for the accused to cooperate in the investigation for the grant of anticipatory bail. The court concluded that it was not a fit case for the petitioner to be entitled to anticipatory bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed for anticipatory bail in a property dispute case where he was accused of fabricating forged documents and threatening the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not cooperate in the investigation and that custodial interrogation was required to unearth the modus operandi adopted by the accused in forging documents.
Issues: Cooperation in investigation, nature of allegations, role of the petitioner, requirement for custodial interrogation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the accused to cooperate in the investigation for the grant of anticipatory bail and concluded that it was not a fit case for the petitioner to be entitled to anticipory bail.
Final Decision: The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Daya Chaudhary, J. - The present petition has been filed by petitioner-O.P. Chhabra under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to him in case FIR No.85 dated 04.02.2018 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC at Police Station Sadar Gurugram.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that original allottee of House No.177 was Raghubir Singh, who entered into an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner. Full payment was made and possession was also delivered. A Will was executed by the original allottee on 26.08.1992 besides executing indemnity bond. Thereafter, original allottee filed a petition for ejectment against the petitioner, which was dismissed on 05.05.2001 by the Rent Controller. Thereafter, original allottee sold the property to one Mukesh Kumar, who also filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner in the year 2007 and the same was dismissed on 31.03.2010. Said Mukesh Kumar further sold the property to the complainant, who has alleged forgery of original documents, which were executed in favour of original allottee-Raghubir Singh.
3. Learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also submits that the petitioner has joined investigation but has not cooperated in the investigation. Even in the written questionnaire, the petitioner has responded vague reply. The petitioner has not produced any document to show his right over the ownership of the property in dispute. The signatures on the documents were sent for comparison but the same were not found to be of the original allottee of the property in dispute.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has also reiterated the arguments raised by learned State counsel.
5. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant and have also perused the contents of the FIR and other documents available on the file.
6. While issuing notice of motion on 04.04.2018, the petitioner was directed to join investigation and thereafter, various dates were given to the petitioner to join investigation and to cooperate in the investigation. The petitioner joined investigation but he did not cooperate in the investigation.
7. As per allegations levelled against the petitioner, the complainant was owner of the property in dispute and the petitioner was tenant. The petitioner fabricated forged documents viz-a-viz agreement to sell, receipts and indemnity bond by impersonating Raghubir Singh, the original allottee/owner. When complainant asked for possession of the property, the petitioner threatened him of elimination of his entire family.
8. As per case of the petitioner, the documents are genuine and the same has been affirmed by the Rent Controller vide judgment dated 05.05.2001 whereas the suit was decreed ex parte and it was not filed by Raghubir Singh. No notice was received by the complainant. Even said Raghubir Singh never appeared before the Rent Controller at any point of time and even at the time of tendering of rent of Rs. 16,276/- by the petitioner. Even that litigation was never in the knowledge of Raghubir Singh and the same was never contested.
9. On receipt of FSL report dated 31.05.2018, the documents of the property were found to be forged and fabricated as the signature on the agreement to sell were not tallying with the signature of the complainant. The petitioner has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. In case there was no relationship of landlord and tenant, the question of payment of rent does not arise. The petitioner even did not make any effort to get his title over the disputed property by way of execution or registration of sale deed in his favour from the complainant.
10. The report of handwriting expert dated 18.12.2000 produced by the petitioner in the rent proceedings under exparte judgment dated 05.05.2001 proves that previous suit titled as 'Raghubir Singh vs. O.P. Chhabra' was also in
