The central legal point established in the judgment is the fraudulent intent of the petitioner in receiving money and the necessity of custodial interrogation for effective investigation.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - The case was taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

2. Petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.38 dated 06.02.2021 registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana.

3. The FIR was registered on the complainat of Manjit Singh Vohra and Sandeep Singh with the allegations that in the year 2019, the petitioner allured the complainants to invest money in his colony which was developed in Sahnewal, Ludhiana and they will get the profit. Petitioner also showed his colony to the complainants by alleging that he is owner of the land and will execute the sale deed in favour of the complainants. Petitioner executed two agreements dated 25.02.2019 in favour of the complainants regarding different plots for full and final payment. The date for execution of sale deed was fixed as 05.05.2019, but the petitioner failed to execute the sale deed as per agreements. On inquiry, the complainants came to know that the petitioner is not the owner of the land and he fraudulently received the amount and, therefore, committed fraud. The petitioner neither executed the sale deed, nor returned the amount in question to the complainant.

4. During inquiry, the Police found that the petitioner had received an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- from Manjit Singh Vohra and Rs.6,15,000/- from Sandeep Singh. As per revenue record, the petitioner is not owner of the land in question.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell with one Bhupinder Singh qua land measuring 15 Kanals 7 Marlas vide agreement to sell dated 10.03.2016. Later on the complainantsManjit Singh Vohra and Sandeep Singh became interested in becoming partners with the petitioners and they were made partners to the extent of 25% and 15% respectively by the petitioner in profit sharing. Resultantly, the arrangement of profit sharing was reflected in two profit sharing agreements executed between the petitioner and the complainants on 25.03.2016.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the complainants were in the knowledge of all the aforesaid arrangement and mode of purchase of 15 Kanals 7 Marlas of land by the petitioner and lodging of FIR is just an act of misappropriation of the amount received by them towards profit sharing as well as the land holding. No sale consideration is mentioned in the agreements.

7. At last, learned counsel submitted that the controversy has civil profile and ingredients of offence under Section 420 IPC are not attracted.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

9. As per status report filed by way of affidavit of Simranjit Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Industrial AreaA, Ludhiana, it was on the inducement of the petitioner that the complainants agreed to purchase the properties in the colony. The complainants entered into two sale agreements with the petitioner of even date i.e. 25.02.2019 vide which Plots No.52, 55, 62, 63, 64 and plots of shops No.9, 10, 11 and 12, total measuring 599 square yards were agreed to be sold to the complainants. Petitioner also received full and final payment of the same. Petitioner also executed sale agreement with Sandeep Singh of the same colony for selling plots No.1, 5, 6 and 7 and plots of shops No.2, 3, and 4, total areas measuring 350 square yards and the petitioner also received full and final payment for the same from the complainant-Sandeep Singh. The date for execution of sale deed was fixed as 05.05.2019, but the petitioner did not execute the sale deed. Thereafter the complainants asked the petitioner to execute sale deeds, but he avoided. A legal notice was sent by the complainants on 21.12.2019 to the petitioner through his counsel, calling upon the petitioner to execute sale deed till 06.01.2020, but the petitioner did not turn up to execute the sale deed. Another notice was issued to the petitioner, but of