IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 06.11.2025 Reserved on: 04.11.2025 Farida ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Tanvir Singh Grewal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Ved Parkash, Senior DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Kunal Dawar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saurav Bajaj, Advocate, for the complainant.

***

MANISHA BATRA , J .

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail in the FIR mentioned below:-

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

143 29.05.2023 Sector-56, 406, 420, 506, 216 and 120-B District of IPC (506 and 216 of IPC Gurugram added later on)

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant Nitin Tuteja alleging that he had entered into an agreement to purchase property owned by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.1,15,00,000/-. A written agreement was executed. A sum of Rs.4 lakhs had been paid by him to the petitioner on 13.12.2020. The petitioner had mentioned in the receipt executed by her that the subject property was free from all encumbrances. The sale deed was to be executed by 15.05.2023. However, sometime thereafter, the complainant came to know that the petitioner had already agreed to sell the same property to some other person namely, Suraj and had even executed a receipt of money in her favour. He asked the petitioner to execute sale deed but in vain, she also did not return his money to him with a dishonest intention. He also came to know from various property dealers that the petitioner and her husband had befooled other people as well by executing such agreement. As such, he prayed for taking action against the petitioner and other co-accused. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The investigation is underway. Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram vide order dated

05.11.2024.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case. Infact, she is a victim in this case. She had agreed to sell the property in question to one Jagdish Babbar proprietor of Rajdhani Properties for sale consideration amount of Rs.1,15,00,000/-. An amount of Rs.23 lakhs was to be paid as earnest money. The said Jagdish Babbar paid an amount of Rs.4 lakhs on 13.12.2022 and he got signed an advance receipt from her. He paid another amount of Rs.14 lakhs on 14.12.2022 but got signed a receipt for a sum of Rs.18 lakhs from her by assuring that the previous receipt of Rs.4 lakhs would be destroyed. However, the names of the buyer were kept blank in those receipts and signatures of her husband Firoz Khan was secured as a witness over the same. The remaining advance money had not been paid by the above named Jagdish Babbar and he told her husband to sell the property to someone else and to return back his money as he was not in a position to pay the remaining advance amount. It is further submitted that believing the above named Jagdish Babbar, the petitioner and her husband had entered into an agreement to sell the same property in favour of Veena Gupta who also paid advance amount of money but then Jagdish Babbar started creating disputes and extending threats to them by saying that he was having two blank receipts and would involve them in false cases. It is argued that infact they had received an amount of Rs.4 lakhs from Jagdish Babbar only and no receipt in favour of the complainant had been executed at any point of time. The dispute between the parties is of totally civil nature which has been given a criminal colour. The ingredients for commission of offence of cheating and fraud etc. are