Jagtar Singh Sangha v. State of Punjab

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

¶1Through the instant petition, the petitioner craves for indulgence of this Court for him being enlarged on regular bail, in case FIR No.163 dated

27.07.2023, under Sections 380, 448, 451, 427, 34 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Navi Baradari, District Jalandhar. ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER

¶2The present FIR derives its genesis from the complaint made by a sexagenarian N.R.I., namely, Surjit Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the 'com-plainant'). Succinctly stated, the allegations levelled in the FIR against the pe-titioner are that, he allured the complainant and took ₹ 20,00,000/- from her for renovation of the property in dispute. Ho ever,  hen the complainant de-manded possession of the property in dispute, he refused to vacate it, rather e!tended threats and demanded money for vacating it. "he relevant e!tract ofDEVINDER YADAV CRM-M-42520-2023 2 the complaint (supra), as narrated in paragraph No.4 of the order dated

11.08.2023, whereby, the learned Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar, has de-clined bail to the petitioner, is extracted hereinafter:- "4. Brief facts of the present case are that instant FIR was got regis-tered against the present applicant/accused as well as against his wife (non applicant) on the statement/complaint of Surjit Kaur w/o late Jas-bir Singh, whereby, she submitted that she and her family is N.R.l and they are owner of property i.e. Kothi No.54, Defense Colony Bahia Ni-was (Max Villa) Jalandhar and year and a half ago, the above men-tioned person called them abroad and told them that their house has been vandalized by an unknown person, to which her daughter said to him to get their house fixed again, on which accused Jagatar Singh Sangha, taking advantage of his acquaintance with her husband, de-manded ? 20,00,000/- and they sent the above mentioned amount to the accused -Jagatar Singh Sangha on which he did not give them any de-tails of the amount used on the repair and whenever they asked for the details, he continued to hesitate and by this he took them into confi-dence and said that he will start living in their house with his family, so that again no unknown person breaks the house. Upon this they give their house to him to take care of the house without charging any rent and now when they came back to India, they requested him to vacate their house and they have to sell it on which the accused Jagatar Singh Sangha and his wife started fighting with them and in return demanded Rs.9,00,000/- and that accused Jagatar Singh Sangha intentionally changed the name plate outside their house from Bahiya Niwas to Max Vila. When they asked, they pushed them out of their house and threat-ened them." SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his asking for the here-inabove extracted relief, has made the following submissions:-

(i)  Despite pendency of a civil suit concerning the property in dis-pute, yet the complainant, in connivance with senior police officials CRM-M-42520-2023 and by camouflaging a civil dispute as a criminal offence, wrongly and illegally got registered the present FIR;

(ii) The petitioner's possession over the property in dispute has been permissive, inasmuch as, only after obtaining consent of the complainant/her daughter for renovation of the property in dispute, the petitioner undertook the renovation work by spending approx. ₹ 60,00,000/ 65,00,000/- thereon. Therefore, until and unless the peti-tioner receives back the entire amount spent by him on renovation, the complainant cannot force him to vacate the property in ques-tion, under the garb of the present FIR;

(iii) Except Section 380 of the IPC, all other offences embodied in the present FIR are bailable and triable by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class;

(iv) Petitioner, who has clean antecedents, has undergone incarcer-ation of approx. 10 months; ANALYSIS

¶4This Court has heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the entire available record. A studied perusal of the record reveals that, since the petitioner also used to reside in England, therefore, the complainant was acquainted with him and accordingly, the complainant's daughter contacted the petitioner and requested him to take care of the property in question and to get it renovated. Not only this, as per demand of the petitioner, a sum of ₹ 21,00,000/- was also transferred from England to the bank account of the petitioner in India, on different occasions.

¶5However, despite making payment of ₹ 21,00,000/-, when the CRM-M-42520-2023 4 complainant returned to India, the petitioner did not hand over the keys of the property in dispute to her, rather denied her entry and extended threats. The petitioner demanded an amount of ₹ 44,00,000/- from the complainant to de-liver possession of the property in question. Not only this, the articles lying in the property in question were also misappropriated by the petitioner.

¶6Moreover, what surfaced during inquiry, as became conducted before registration of the present FIR, is that, there were whatsapp chats be-tween the complainant's daughter Inderjit Kaur and the petitioner, wherein, the petitioner can be seen assuring the complainant's daughter that he will hand over the keys of the property in question to her maternal grandfather/ complainant's father. The relevant extract of the whatsapp chats is extracted hereinafter:- "Applicant's daughter Inderjit: Hi chacha could you please give the keys this week to my Nana. Jagtar Singh @ Laddi: O.K., we move this week end and give keys early next week. Applicant's daughter Inderjit: Hi Chacha how are you. Will you be giv-ing the keys today. Jagtar Singh @ Laddi: Wednesday or Thursday nearly done. Applicant's daughter: Hi Chacha nana will come over to the house to-morrow. Will the keys be ready. Jagtar Singh @ Laddi: Please send them Thursday or ring them. Applicant's daughter Inderjit: Hi Chacha My nana is coming tomorrow to pick up the keys and see the house, he will come in the morning. Jagtar Singh @ Laddi: I spoke to him just now and fix the time. Applicant's daughter Inderjit: O.K. Thank you, Nana will come to the house on Friday to come and see it. And he will get the keys there he said. Jagtar Singh @ Laddi: Wait please, ring you back today. Applicant's daughter Inderjit: Hi Chacha Hope you are well. What time CRM-M-42520-2023 5 are %ou gi-ing the /e%s toda%.6

¶7However, despite assurances, the petitioner did not hand over the keys of the property in question to the person concerned. Noticeably, the devi-ous efforts of the petitioner did not pause here, inasmuch as, in furtherance of his evil design, he even filed a suit for permanent injunction before the learned Civil Judge concerned, however, by taking an altogether different stand therein that, he has *een a tenant over the property in dispute since +une 202', for a rent of ₹ 20,000/- per month. The application filed by the petitioner, un-der Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC, for grant of ad-in-terim injunction, was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge concerned, vide or-der dated 25.08.2023. This dismissal order has been anchored upon an obser-vation that, there is nothing available on record either to substantiate the ten-ancy claim of the petitioner, or, to substantiate his claim regarding spending ₹ 60,00,000/ 65,00,000/- on renovation of the property in dispute. The relevant extract of the order dated 25.08.2023, copy whereof has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the complainant, during the course of arguments, is reproduced hereinafter:- "@. >he "ama#andi for the %ear 1224-A2 is on record. Further$ the cop% of the sale deed dated 1B.A1.A44' is on record. 7s per the "ama- #andi "as-ir Singh and Sur it !aur are shown as co-owner of the suit propert%. 7s per the sale deed the propert% is shown to #e registered in the name of "as-ir Singh and Sur it !aur. ������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������������������������ ���������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������� �����������₹��������������������������������������������������������� CRM-M-42520-2023 6 ���������������������������������������������������������������� �����������������������������������������������������������  >he plaintiff has relied upon certain photographs$ cop% of the electricit% #ills$ water sewerage #ills and the plaintiff claims to #e in legal posses-sion o-er the suit propert% on the #asis of the said documents. ������� �������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������� The order dated 25.08.2023 is ordered to be taken on record as 'Mark A'.

¶8Apart from the above, this Court had, on 29.02.2024, posed a spe-cific query to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is ready to vacate his possession over the property in dispute, which admit-tedly belongs to the complainant, and to surrender its keys, whereupon, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought some time to get the relevant instruc-tions from petitioner. Today again, this Court reiterated its above query, whereupon, the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the behest of his client, returned a response in negative. Despite making refusal to vacate possession and to surrender keys of the property in dispute, the learned counsel for the petitioner insisted for grant of bail, merely on the ground that, the petitioner has suffered sufficient incarceration and it is a Magisterial trial. REASONS FOR DISMISSING THE INSTANT PETITION

¶9The principal reason for drawing this inference generates from the factum that: (i) despite the petitioner remaining unsuccessful before the learned civil court concerned, wherein he adopted an altogether different stand CRM-M-42520-2023 of tenancy, thus to reap the desired results in respect of the property in dis-pute, which admittedly belongs to the complainant; and (ii) despite receiving an amount of ₹ 21,00,000/- from the complainant for renovation of the prop-erty in question; the petitioner has illegally occupied the property in question, without any legal right or title.

¶10Moreover, owing to there being absolute dearth of any cogent material/evidence on record, the tenancy claim of the petitioner, as also his claim regarding expenditure of ₹ 60,00,000/ 65,00,000/- on renovation of the property in dispute, has already been declined by the learned Civil Judge con-cerned, vide order dated 25.08.2023.

¶11Furthermore, despite the petitioner being afforded two consecu-tive opportunities, he is reluctant to hand over the keys of the property in dis-pute to the complainant, rather is adamant to retain his possession over it, until his money, as allegedly spent on renovation, is returned to him. This act of the petitioner has resulted in the complainant, despite her being admittedly the owner of the property in dispute, becoming deprived to use and occupy it.

¶12For all the reasons (supra), this Court is not inclined to, merely on the ground of period of his incarceration, grant the relief of regular bail to the pe-titioner. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed.

¶13However, anything observed here-in-above shall have no effect on the merits of the case and is meant for deciding the present petition only.

(KULDEEP TIWARI) May 22, 2024

JUDGE devinder :

CRM-M-42520-2023 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 217 CRM-M-42520-2023 Date of Decision : May 22, 2024 JAGTAR SINGH SANGHA -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB -RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate for the complainant. ***