SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(P&H) 1475

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
Renu Mehta and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M No. 22415 of 2022
Decided On : 22-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Deepdaman Singh Mann, Udayveer Singh,
For the Respondents: Neeraj Madaan, G.C. Dhuriwala

The court emphasized that parties must adhere to contract terms, with equitable considerations influencing the grant of bail in criminal cases involving substantial financial transactions.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420, and 120-B - Pre-arrest bail - Petitioners sought bail in property dispute involving joint ownership of an industrial plot and allegations of cheating and criminal conspiracy - Petitioners had received substantial payments with claims of no transfer of property or NOC as per contract. (Paras 1, 2, 9, 12, 30)

(B) Bailee Duties - In a property sale context, one party's performance is contingent on the other's fulfillment of payment obligations, emphasizing the need for mutual adherence to contract terms. (Paras 10, 18)

(C) Principles of Equity - The court favored equitable relief, directing the deposit of a substantial amount as a condition for bail, considering the complainant's age and payment history. (Paras 25, 27)

Facts of the case:
The dispute arose from a series of agreements involving the sale of a joint-industrial plot where the complainants alleged fraud and retention of funds by the petitioners. (Paras 2, 18)

Findings of Court:
The court imposed bail conditions aimed at balancing the interests of both parties, taking note of the financial stakes involved. (Paras 25, 30)

Issues: Determination of which party had breached the agreement and the allegations of fraud and cheating against the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that both parties had mutual obligations under the agreement, and equity required a careful balance in the administration of bail based on the complainant's financial plight.

Result: Petition for pre-arrest bail granted, subject to specific conditions including a deposit.

Table of Content
1. dispute over property ownership and investment (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. failure to fulfill conditions by petitioners (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. continuous breach of agreement (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
4. petitioners' intent to defraud (Para 18 , 19)
5. calculating damages from unfulfilled agreements (Para 20 , 21)
6. court's responsibility to ensure equity and fairness (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
7. conclusion and granting of bail with conditions (Para 30)

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Petitioners, namely Renu Mehta, aged 51 years and her husband-Neeraj Mehta, aged 56 years, have filed the present petition, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 0078, dated 21.04.2022, under Sections 406 , 420 and 120-B of IPC , registered at Police Station Phase-I, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) [Annexure P-2].

2. This case revolves around a property dispute amongst the petitioners and the complainant, concerning an industrial plot, bearing No. D-38, Industrial Area, Phase-I, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), measuring 1416.67 Square Yards. The said plot is jointly owned by both the petitioners, having 50% share each.

3. Before setting out the details of the transaction in chronological sequence, it would be appropriate to first refer to the FIR (supra) registered by the complainant, Gurdev Sahai Marwah, which reads as under:

1. That the Complainant No. 1 who is a senior citizen, has been residing at the above mentioned address in the United States of America for a long time and has given her General Power of Attorney dated 07.09.1985 (copy enclosed) to her close relative i.e. the Complainant No. 2, which is duly embossed by the Finance and Planning Officer, Chandigarh Administration (copy enclosed), the same has been valid and subsisting till today as the same has not been revoked, thus, the Complainant No. 2 is well competent to represent the Complainant No. 1 and to conduct the proceedings, who otherwise acquainted/conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present Complaint.

2. That the Complainant No. 2 is also a senior citizen who have Complaint on behalf of the Complainant No. 1 as well as on behalf in his right,

3. That whereas, the said Neeraj Mehta is the husband of the said Renu Mehta who have been the joint owners to the extent of 50% share each in the free hold built-up Industrial Plot No. D-38, Industrial Area, Phase 1, SAS Nagar (Mohali) measuring 1416.67 sq. yds. having covered area of 11000 sq. ft. app. (hereinafter referred to as the said building). There have been two blocks in the said building, the 1st block has been consisting of the Lower Ground Floor, Upper Ground Floor, First Floor, whereas the 2nd block has been consisting of the Lower Ground Floor, Upper Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor. The said building has been having seven tenants from whom the rental income has been accruing @ Rs. 2,03,000/-per month with the applicable increment clause, and whereas, an area of 6500 sq. ft. has been lying vacant as on 24.04.2018. It is also important to mention here that there has been a loan against the said building to the tune of Rs. 1,59,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Nine Lacs only) from Magma Fincorp Ltd. as on 24.04.2018.

4. That both the alleged persons have been having personal as well as business relations with the Complainant No. 2 for a long time and have thus won over his trust, and have been approaching him to seek one or the other help over a period of time as they have always been in some sort of financial crisis. Due to their pressing need and compelling circumstances, they approached the Complainants to sell the 100% share in the said building to which the Complainants agreed to purchase the same believing their representation to be true and being so induced by them, an Agreement to Sell dated 24.04.2018 (copy enclosed) was duly executed in good faith on requisite stamp papers between the Parties on various terms and conditions, which was duly Notarized as well, the content of the said Ag

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top