Vipan Kumar vs State Of Haryana
2023 Latest Caselaw 1582 P&H

209    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                CHANDIGARH

                          CRM-M-48664 of 2021(O&M)
                          Date of Decision: 24.01.2023

Vipan Kumar
                                                               ...Petitioner
Versus

State of Haryana
                                                             ...Respondent

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH


Present:-   Ms. Meenakshi Bali, Advocate
            For the petitioner.

            Mr. Naveen Sheoran, DAG Haryana.

            Mr. Diwan S. Adhlakha, Advocate
            For the complainant.
                  ***

KARAMJIT SINGH, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under

Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case having FIR No. 248

dated 17.06.2021 registered under Sections 323, 342, 406, 506, 120-B IPC

and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District

Yamuna Nagar.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of complainant

Shashi Bala, whose husband during his lifetime executed one agreement to

sell his property with the petitioner for valuable consideration and when the

said proposed vendor failed to execute the sale deed, suit for specific

performance was filed and the said suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment

dated 05.08.2015 (Annexure P-2) and thereafter application for execution of

1 of 3

CRM-M-48664 of 2021 =2=

the said decree was also filed and in the meantime the husband of the

complainant died and only after the death of her husband the complainant

lodged the present FIR leveling false allegations against the petitioner in

order to counter the aforesaid ex parte decree. The counsel for the petitioner

further submits that the petitioner has joined the investigation with the police

in compliance of the order of interim bail dated 22.11.2021.

The present petition is contested by counsel for the complainant

who submits that the complainant is a poor widow and the petitioner tried to

take forcible possession of her residential house and also attacked her. The

counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was having no

knowledge about passing of any ex parte decree against her husband with

regard to the property in question. The counsel for the complainant further

submits that as in the present case offences under SC & ST Act are there,

only appeal under Section 14-A of the Act is maintainable and on this sole

ground the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be

dismissed.

The State counsel on instructions from DSP Rajim Kumar

submits that the petitioner joined the investigation and further gave answers

to the questionnaire which was put to him by the Investigating Officer and

that now the petitioner is not required by the police for any further custodial

interrogation.

I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the

parties.

                                    2 of 3

 CRM-M-48664 of 2021                                            =3=

The present petition was filed on 15.11.2021 and in response to

notice of motion the counsel for complainant put in appearance on

22.11.2021 but at the initial stage no objection was raised by the counsel for

the complainant with regard to the maintainability of the present petition. So,

this Court is of the view that the objection regarding maintainability of the

present petition which is raised for the first time today cannot be entertained

at this stage, when the petitioner is not required by the police for any further

investigation.

Admittedly, civil dispute is going on between the parties with

regard to one residential house which as per the petitioner was agreed to be

sold by the husband of the complainant to him and regarding which now

there is ex parte decree in favour of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner

who has joined the investigation is no more required by the police for any

further investigation. Thus, no purpose is going to be served by sending the

petitioner to police custody at this stage.

In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the

case, the present petition is allowed and the order of interim bail dated

22.11.2021 is made absolute. The petitioner should abide by the conditions

as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

                                                       (KARAMJIT SINGH )
24.01.2023                                                 JUDGE
Jiten

             Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
             Whether reportable : Yes/No




                                    3 of 3