Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajwinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 2 September, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M No. 52994 of 2023
212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 52994 of 2023
Date of Decision: 02.09.2024
Rajwinder Kaur ...Pe oner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate
for the pe oner.
Mr. Sukhdev Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Mayur Karkra, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta on Sec ons
168 25.06.2022 Tripuri, District 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC
Pa ala
1. The pe oner, apprehending arrest in the FIR cap oned above, came up before
this Court under Sec on 438 of the CrPC, 1973, seeking an cipatory bail.
2. On 18.10.2023, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court recorded the conten on of
counsel for the pe oner that the pe oner was ready to get the sale deed cancelled
qua which she was stated to have impersonated, on this ground no ce was issued and
on the next date i.e. 03.11.2023, she was released on interim bail. The said order is
con nuing ll date.
3. It would be appropriate to extract order dated 06.03.2024 which reads as
follows:-
"On 18th of October, 2023 following order was passed:
"Apprehending her arrest in FIR No.168 dated
25.06.2022 registered for offence punishable under Sec ons
406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC at Police Sta on Tripuri,
District Pa ala, the pe oner has preferred this pe on under
Sec on 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
Counsel for the pe oner contends that the pe oner is
ready to get the sale deed cancelled qua which she stated to
have impersonated.
No ce of mo on.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr.
D.A.G., Punjab accepts no ce on behalf of the respondent-
State.
Adjourned to 03.11.2023."
Today Mr. Thakur has produced applica ons filed before
the Sub Divisional Magistrate as well as Sub Registrar to show
that the pe oner has already submi ed applica on(s) seeking
cancella on of the sale deed. However, the same being a
registered document has to be anulled by way of declaratory
decree only. He further submits that the pe oner has also filed
a civil suit seeking decree of declara on to the effect that the
sale deed be treated as cancelled.
In the considered opinion of this Court the be er course
would be that the par es appear before the Media on &
Concilia on Centre wherein the se lement be reduced into
wri ng and the said se lement be produced before the Civil
Court wherein the suit is pending and the decree be passed in
accordance thereof.
In view of above, the par es are directed to appear
before the Media on & Concilia on Centre of this Court on
11.03.2024.
For awai ng report of Ld. Mediator, list on 07.05.2024.
Interim order to con nue."
4. It would also be appropriate to extract order dated 23.05.2024 which reads as
follows:-
"The par es though claimed that they have reached the
se lement, though they s ll seem to be far away from the
se lement. Pe oner- Rajwinder Kaur who is present in Court
submits that s ll she is ready to cancel the sale deed. However,
under the garb of cancella on of the sale deed, the complainant
is trying to have both ways as she wants to keep the money as
well.
Per contra, Ms. Pooja appearing for the complainant
submits that the complainant does not want that the complaint
filed under Sec on 138 of the Nego able Instruments Act
should be withdrawn, but only wants that the se lement would
be reduced into wri ng.
The par es are referred to the Media on & Concilia on
Centre of this Court on 02.07.2024 and the Mediator shall
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
reduce the se lement to wri ng in case the par es arrive as
such.
To await report, adjourned to 30.07.2024.
Interim order to con nue."
5. I have heard counsel for the par es and have gone through the pleadings and its
analysis would lead to the following outcome. Although interim protec on was granted
because of statement of the pe oner but another aspect which this Court has to see is
that whether pe oner's custodial interroga on is required and secondly about the
jus fica on of arrest. Another aspect which is required to be kept in mind is that
pe oner is a woman and there is special statutory provision for woman when it comes
to ques on of bail.
6. In the light of observa ons made above, it would be appropriate to refer to the
facts which are taken from short reply dated 01.09.2024 which reads as follows:-
"3. That the brief facts of the present case/FIR No. 168
(supra) are that one applica on bearing no. 40/Peshi dated
28.03.2022 was moved by Rani Kaur (complainant) before the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Pa ala against Sukhwinderjit
Kaur, Manager, S.K. Finance, Kapurthala on the allega ons that
the complainant-Rani Kaur got sanc oned loan amount of
Rs.1,25,000/- on 18.11.2011 from a Finance Company situated
at Chho Baradari, Pa ala to construct her house by equitable
mortgage of the sale deed of her plot as security. A er a few
days of the approval of the loan, Sukhwinderjit Kaur, who
claimed herself to be the Manager of S.K. Finance Company,
Kapurthala came to meet the complainant and told her that she
would get loan approved for the construc on of her house, for
which she required sale deed of her house. Upon which, the
complainant told her that she had got approved the loan and
the sale deed was with the aforemen oned finance company
which had provided loan to her and she would only get it back
a er paying the en re loan amount. At this Sukhwinderjit Kaur
told the complainant that she would get approved her
Emergency loan of Rs. 1,25,000/- online through NAVI App and
therea er, she sent an OTP on her son's mobile number to apply
the online loan and she said that they would get this payment
online because this loan was online. But a er receiving OTP,
when the aforesaid Sukhwinderjit Kaur met them, then she gave
Rs. 1,25,000/- in cash instead of online payment and clicked the
photo and a er that, she came at Chho Baradari to get sale
deed and to give the loan amount to the complainant. A er
ge ng the sale deed on 14.12.2021, Sukhwinderjit Kaur said
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
that they had to write an agreement for receiving the loan and
taken the complainant and her son to Booth No. 150 at Mini
Secretariat, Pa ala, wherein she told the son of the complainant
to stay at canteen by making an excuse and took her to Booth
No. 150, upon which, the complainant became suspicious as she
knew that the sale deeds were wri en in these booths. When
the complainant enquired from Sukhwinderjit Kaur, she silenced
her and, in the mean me, the boy present on the booth told the
complainant regarding Sukhwinderjit Kaur that sale deed has to
be done there in the name of Rani Kaur. From which the
complainant came to know that Sukhwinderjit Kaur was playing
fraud upon her and when the complainant asked about the
same from Sukhwinderjit Kaur, she clearly denied and said that
the complainant had got confused. At this the complainant
came to her son and again, the aforesaid Sukhwinderjit Kaur
started trapping them falsely by coming to them. But the
complainant party refused her. When the complainant party
asked for their sale deed documents from her, then she started
demanding Rs. 1,25,000/- from her and escaped from the spot
with their sale deed.
4. That therea er on 15.12.2021, the complainant filed a
complaint at Police Post, Officer Colony, Pa ala and during the
enquiry of the said complainant, Sukhwinderjit Kaur was called
to the police sta on, wherein she started making false
accusa ons against the complainant party and said that she
had given them Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant party and she
showed the photo to the enquiry officer, which was clicked at
the me of giving Rs. 1,25,000/-. In this way, Sukhwinderjit Kaur
had played fraud with the complainant and she was trapping
them in false accusa ons.
5. That the enquiry of the said applica on was marked to
the In-charge Economic Offence Branch, Pa ala by the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Pa ala, who a er conduc ng
thorough and detailed enquiry, found that complainant Rani
Kaur had purchased one plot measuring 48 yards from
Rajwinder Kaur (pe oner) vide sale deed no. 11166 dated
13.01.2021 and muta on no. 6069 dated 22.02.2021 of the
same was sanc oned in the name of complainant. As per the
statement of complainant, she had transferred a sum of Rs.
1,10,000/- into the bank account of Rajwinder Kaur and the
remaining payment was given in cash. Therea er, complainant
got sanc oned a loan of Rs. 1,25,000/- on 18.11.2021 from one
Finance Company a er mortgaging the original sale deed of the
plot to the said finance company for the construc on on the said
plot purchased by her. A er few days of sanc on of loan,
Sukhwinderjit Kaur, who claimed to be manager of S.K. Finance,
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
Kapurthala came to the complainant and said that she can get
loan sanc oned on her plot for construc on purpose and for
that, she demanded original sale deed of the plot. When the
complainant told Sukhwinderjit Kaur that she had already
obtained one loan and the sale deed of the plot was with the
said finance company and she can only get it back a er paying
the loan amount. Upon which, Sukhwinderjit Kaur gave a sum of
Rs. 1,25,000/- cash to the complainant and cleared her loan and
took original sale deed alongwith Aadhar card, PAN card, 6
blank cheques (3 cheques of complainant and 3 of her son). On
14.12.2021, Sukhwinderjit Kaur called the complainant at Booth
No. 150, Mini Secretariat, Pa ala on the pretext of scribing
agreement for obtaining loan but instead, Sukhwinderjit Kaur
with malafide inten on, tried to scribe the agreement to sell of
her plot. However, complainant came to know about the same
and instead of returning the sale deed and cheques back to the
complainant, Sukhwinderjit Kaur started giving her threats and
fled away from the spot alongwith the sale deed. Therea er, on
21.12.2021, Sukhwinderjit Kaur in connivance with Rajwinder
Kaur (pe oner) and witnesses Karan and Parkash Singh
(numberdar) got executed sale deed of the aforemen oned plot
in favour of Sukhwinderjit Kaur vide Sale Deed No. 2021-
22/11/1/13349 dated 21.12.2021 by impersona ng Rajwinder
Kaur (pe oner) as Rani Kaur (complainant) and got sanc oned
Muta on No. 6205 dated 05.01.2022 in her favour.
6. That it is worthwhile to men on herein that the
aforemen oned sale deed no. 2021-22/11/1/13349 dated
21.12.2021 was not a ested by the complainant and as per the
record of the sale deed, there was photograph of Rajwinder
Kaur (pe oner) instead of Rani Kaur (complainant).
Furthermore, sale deed writer Neeraj Bansal and a es ng
advocate namely Inderjit Singh iden fied that Rajwinder Kaur
(pe oner) came before them by impersona ng herself as Rani
Kaur (complainant). Hence, offence under Sec on 406, 419, 420,
467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC was made out against the
aforemen oned Sukhwinderjit Kaur, Rajwinder Kaur, Karan and
Parkash Singh."
7. Given the nature of allega ons and the inves ga on conducted so far coupled
with the fact that the pe oner's conduct of ge ng the sale deed cancelled, she is a
woman and has clean antecedents, it is neither a case for pre-trial incarcera on nor
custodial interroga on.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
8. Given above, the pe on is allowed and interim order dated 03.11.2023 is made
absolute. All pending applica ons, if any, stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
02.09.2024
Jyo Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
