Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant, J
Pratibha Manchanda – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 1793 OF 2023 | Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.8146 2023 | Special Leave Petition (Crl.) D.No.20936 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Saket Sikri
For the Respondents: Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Shri Maninder Singh
The court emphasized the serious nature of allegations involving forgery, underscoring the paramount need for custodial interrogation to ensure justice and prevent further fraudulent activity.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B - Anticipatory bail - High Court granted anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2 in a case involving alleged forgery of sale deeds and power of attorney relating to valuable land - Importance of custodial interrogation emphasized due to serious nature of offense - The authenticity of the GPA was questioned, with prima facie evidence indicating collusion and fraudulent intent in property transfer - Appellants, being senior citizens, claimed no sale of land occurred and that they were victims of a well-orchestrated conspiracy. (Paras 2-36)
Facts of the case:
The Appellants, senior citizens, contested that they never sold their land or executed power of attorney. They discovered a fraudulent sale deed linked to their property during attempts to obtain revenue papers. The Respondent applied for anticipatory bail, which was initially denied by the Additional Sessions Judge but granted by the High Court. (Paras 3-10)
Findings of Court:
The appeal set aside the High Court's order granting anticipatory bail, emphasizing the necessity for custodial interrogation due to the grave accusations of forgery and conspiracy. The Court ordered a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to oversee the investigation. (Paras 30-36)
Issues: Whether the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail, given the serious allegations against Respondent No. 2, including forgery and misrepresentation of property ownership. (Paras 12-14)
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court highlighted the necessity of considering the serious nature of allegations when determining bail, underscoring the importance of thorough investigation and interrogation for justice administration. (Paras 16-19)
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the order granting anticipatory bail was set aside. A SIT was directed to investigate the matter. (Paras 30-35)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fraudulent transfer of land ownership (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments on anticipatory bail validity (Para 12) |
JUDGEMENT
Surya Kant, J. 1. Application seeking permission to file the SLP is allowed. Leave Granted. 2. The instant appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Crl. A. No.___ of 2023 @ SLP (CRL.) D. NO. 20936 OF 2022 Page 1 of 32 Digitally signed by satish kumar yadav Date: 2023.07.07 16:29:47 IST Reason:
- Signature Not Verified Chandigarh (hereinafter, ‘High Court’) dated 31.05.2022, whereby the High Court allowed the petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, ‘Cr.P.C’) and granted anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2 in FIR No. 113 of 2022, dated 16.03.2022, registered at PS Badshahpur, district Gurugram, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’).
- A. FACTS 3. The abovementioned FIR was lodged by the Appellants against Respondent No. 2 and other coaccused individuals, namely, Shel Narang, Bhim Singh and Vinod. According to the contents of the FIR, the Appellants are senior citizens who were owners and had possession over the land bearing rect. No. 55, Killa No. 3/1 (79), 4/1 (713), Crl. A. No.___ of 2023 @ SLP (CRL.) D. NO. 20936 OF 2022 Page 2 of 32 measuring 15 Kanal 2 Marla, situated within the revenue estate of Village Begampur Khatola, Tehsil Kadipur, District Gurugram (hereinafter, ‘Subject Land’) for over a period of 30 years. The Appellants claim that they never sold the Subject Land to anyone nor have they ever executed any power of attorney (hereinafter, ‘GPA’) in favor of any third party. The area has, in their version of events, always been unequivocally under their possession and has never been ceded in any form or fashion to people outside the family.
4. On 28.02.2022, Appellant No. 2 went to Patwar Bhawan, Gurugram to obtain revenue papers for the Subject Land. He discovered there only that a person named Bhim Singh Rathi had approached the halqa patwari to sanction mutation of the aforementioned land. The application for mutation Crl. A. No.___ of 2023 @ SLP (CRL.) D. NO. 20936 OF 2022 Page 3 of 32 was, as per the Appellants, based on a forged and fabricated sale deed bearing vasika No. 11493 dated 24.02.2022 (hereinafter, ‘2022 Sale Deed’). After looking into the matter further, Appellant No. 2 learned that the said sale deed was registered in the office of SubRegistrar Kadipur, District Gurugram and was executed by Respondent No. 2. The execution in question was based on yet another, purportedly, forged and fabricated GPA bearing Vasika No. 13907 dated 18.09.1996 (hereinafter, ‘1996 GPA’), registered in the office of SubRegistrarV, South East Delhi.
5. The Appellants, as alluded to earlier, have adopted the stance that they never executed or registered any GPA in favor of Respondent No. 2, nor are they even acquainted with him in any form or fashion. Instead, both the 1996 GPA and the Crl. A. No.___ of 2023 @ SLP (CRL.) D. NO. 20936 OF 2022 Page 4 of 32 2022 Sale Deed were completely fraudulent documents created by Respondent No. 2 and the remaining coaccused named in the FIR, in collusion with other officials at the SubRegistrar's office. These actions were carried out in complete subterfuge and without any involvement of the Appellants.
6. The Appellants claim that they are in possession of the original sale deed for the Subject Land, and a true copy of it was attached to the complaint. Upon examining the 202
