IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-13413-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 11.03.2025 Surender Singh Panwar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Apoorv Garg, Senior DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the complainant.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. 28 dated 16.02.2025, registered under Sections 406, 418, 420, 466 and 468 of IPC at Police Station Arya Nagar, Rohtak.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of a direction issued by the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Complainant Savita alleged that the petitioner, who was well acquainted to her family and was also running a wheel alignment business as a tenant in the shop owned by the complainant, had represented to her that he was owner in possession of a plot measuring 400 sq. yards in the area of Kanheli road, Rohtak and had induced the complainant to purchase the same. she had agreed to do so. An agreement to sell was executed between them on 10.02.2020. The sale consideration amount was fixed to Rs. 60 Lakhs, which was paid by her. The sale deed was to be executed on 28.11.2020. The petitioner, however, kept on delaying the matter and did not get the sale deed registered. Feeling suspicious, the complainant made inquiries and came to know that the petitioner had falsely represented to her that he was owner of the above said plot. By alleging that the petitioner had cheated her, she prayed for taking action against him. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and the same are underway. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak but the same had been dismissed, vide order dated 27.02.2025.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, the husband of the complainant, who was previously working in Petroleum Ministry, had got one petrol pump allotted in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner had to pay a sum of Rs. 15 Lakhs to him. In lieu thereof, he had transferred two shops owned by his wife in the name of the complainant. These shops were given on rent to the wife of the petitioner with an understanding that whenever the petitioner would give the amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs to the husband of the complainant, these shops would be transferred back in favour of his wife. It is submitted that when the petitioner asked the complainant to accept the aforesaid amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs and transfer back the shops in the name of his wife, the complainant had rather filed a civil suit against him. It is further submitted that a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs was given to the petitioner by the complainant through bank transaction but no other amount of money had been given by the complainant and a false complaint had been lodged. It is argued that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature which has been given a criminal colour. Civil litigation is already pending between them. In fact the petitioner is the victim. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. He is ready to join the investigation. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody. Therefore, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Notice of motion.

5. At this stage, power of attorney has been filed on behalf of the complainant. Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. He, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has argued that ther