The court emphasized that the denial of signatures and failure to join the investigation raised the possibility of custodial interrogation, and the non-filing of a civil suit for specific performance did not absolve the petitioner from culpability.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi I. Mehta, J. - Apprehending his arrest in the criminal case pertaining to the FIR bearing No.268 dated 22.08.2019 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Sirsa, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, the petitioner has preferred this petition for seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the allegations, as levelled by complainant Harbhajan Singh Dhanju in the subject FIR, are that the father of the petitioner was his close acquaintance. In October 2011, the petitioner introduced him to his (petitioner's) co-accused Karamjit Singh Brar while disclosing that his said co-accused was the owner of V2 (half) share in PlotNo.2235, Sector 20, Part-3, HUDA, Sirsa and he (complainant) agreed to purchase the same for a sum of Rs.14,55,000/-. He had paid the afore-said amount to the said owner through the petitioner on different occasions who had been issuing the receipts in this regard. The petitioner also executed a receipt qua having received the entire amount of sale consideration from him (complainant) and then, an agreement qua the said sale transaction was executed but thereafter, the petitioner and his co-accused kept on dillydallying the execution and registration of the sale deed in pursuance of the afore-said agreement and when he (complainant) enquired from the office of HUDA, he came to know that the above-named co-accused of the petitioner and the other co-owner of the said plot named Ved Parkash had surrendered the plot to HUDA and thus, the petitioner and his co-accused had duped him of the above-said amount.

3. Reply has already been filed on behalf of the respondent-State, by way of the affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), Sirsa.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel (assisted by learned counsel for the complainant) in the present petition and have also perused the file thoroughly.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the dispute between the parties, at the most, is of civil nature and the complainant did not file any civil suit for seeking specific performance of the above-said agreement to sell and in these circumstances, it becomes explicit that the petitioner has been got falsely implicated in this case and he deserves therelief as prayed for in this petition.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel argues that the petitioner denied his signatures on the receipt executed to acknowledge the payment of the afore-said amount of sale consideration and moreover, the non-filing of any suit for specific performance does not absolve the petitioner from his culpability in the present case and keeping in view the gravity of the offence as committed by him (petitioner), this petition be dismissed.

7. The complainant has levelled specific allegations against the petitioner in the said FIR qua his having pursuaded him (complainant) to purchase the above-said plot. He has also categorically alleged therein that he had paid the entire afore-said amount of sale consideration to the said owner through the petitioner on different occasions and the petitioner had also executed the receipt to acknowledge this fact.

8. The petitioner was granted the relief of interim bail by the Coordinate Bench vide the order dated 12.09.2019 with the direction to him to join in the investigation as and when called upon to do so. However, in Para 5 of the preliminary submissions in the Reply, it has been mentioned that the petitioner denied his signatures on the above-said receipt and therefore, notices were issued to him under Section 41(1) Cr.PC to join in the investigation on 16.03.2020, 17.06.2020 and 30.06.2020 as his specimen signatures were required for the purpose of comparison thereof with the signatures appearing on the said receipt but the petitioner did not join in the investigation. Though in his affidavit dated 12.08.2021, the petitioner had deposed that he had joined in the investigation on15.05.2020, 16.05.2020, 21.05.2