Rajesh Bindal, J.
Criminal Misc. Nos. 38838-39 of 2009
The applications are allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions.
Criminal Misc. No. M-20078 of 2009
1. Prayer in the present petition is for pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 152 dated 1.7.2009, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered against the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner in the FIR is that the alleged owner of the property in dispute, namely, Balraj Singh Bhuttar was further trying to sell the same through present petitioner and the documents in original had already been handed over to him. The submission is that the property in dispute was purchased by Balraj Singh Bhuttar vide registered sale deed dated 20.5.2009, for which No Objection Certificate was issued by the Estate Office on 18.5.2009. After the registration of the sale deed even in the record of the Estate Office, the property was transferred in the name of Balraj Singh Bhuttar. It is only that the petitioner was engaged thereafter by Balraj Singh Bhuttar to sell the same further. He was handed over the original documents as the same were always asked for by a prospective buyer for verification. The petitioner had merely acted in good faith. He has no role to play in the transfer of property in the name of Balraj Singh Bhuttar by adopting dubious means. On a query by the Court as to whether the petitioner was a property dealer, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a suspended Haryana Government employee of Excise and Taxation Department, who is doing this business on part time basis. He further submitted that the petitioner did not have any reason to doubt the bonafides of the earlier transaction as even the actual physical possession of the property was also with Balraj Singh Bhuttar. The owner of the property, namely, Balraj Singh Bhuttar was introduced to the petitioner by one Mr. Dhillon, who is a property dealer and is known to the petitioner. Mr. Dhillon and Balraj Singh Bhuttar are stated to be business partners. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to hand over the original documents, which are in his possession and also co-operate in the investigation to find out the real accused. As no recovery is to be made, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh submitted that it is plain and simple case of fraud where the absentee landlord has been cheated. The unscrupulous gang of property dealers is in look out for the properties in the city, which are lying vacant. The same are sold/transferred in connivance with the officials/officers of the Estate Office. The manner in which the permissions were granted and the speed at which the Estate Office had acted certainly shows that there is much more behind the scene, which is yet to come out. In fact, the petitioner is one of the master minds, who was instrumental in getting the first sale deed also registered. After registration of the first sale deed on 20.5.2009, immediately a deal had been struck with another buyer, namely, Ms. Darshana Gupta, from whom the petitioner had even received earnest money of Rs. 5,00,000/-. In fact, the fraud came to light only when the subsequent vendee, namely, Ms. Darshana Gupta approached the local relatives of the original owner regarding the sale of the property. Once it was disclosed by them that the property in question was not sold, the matter was taken up and the FIR was got registered. Immediately the petitioner returned the earnest money to Ms. Darshana Gupta. He further submitted that the entire fraud was committed in a planned manner. Around two months prior to the registration of the sale deed, an application was filed under the Right to Information Act with the Estate Office asking for record of the property in dispute regarding its ownership, possession etc. He further submitted that the actual owner of the property has been impersonated not only before the Estate Office but even before the Sub Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed. One of the witnesses to the sale deed is also missing and so is the person, who was kept as a care taker/Chowkidar in the house. Reference was also made to the fact that the petitioner is an accused in another FIR registered against him bearing No. 109 dated 12.5.2009 at Police Station, Sector 11, Chandigarh u/s 420 IPC. On a pointed query by the court as regards any enquiry or action in the Estate Office and also the interrogation or collection of evidence by the Investigating Officer from the Estate Office or associating the persons, who had attested the documents filed with the Estate Office and also who had witnessed the sale deed, it was submitted that nothing has been done so far.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that considering the fact that it is a tip off an ice berg where a lot of absentee landlords are being defrauded in a planned manner by unscrupulous property dealers, the matter having come to notice deserves to be investigated in detail and in such cases, the quality of investigation in custody is always better. A lot of persons are involved in the whole process.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find this to be a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Prima facie, the role of the petitioner is not so simple, as is sought to be projected. His credentials are not good. He is a suspended employee of Haryana Excise and Taxation Department, who is engaged in the business of property dealings, meaning thereby, at the cost of the State from where he must be getting subsistence allowance to the extent of 50-75%, he is not only engaged in the property dealing business but also in fraudulent deals.
6. While rejecting the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner, this court is constrained to make observations regarding the manner in which the entire fraud is being investigated at different levels and also the casual attitude with which final action against a suspended employee is pending, letting him enjoy paid holidays at the cost of the State and indulge in business of property dealing and other fraudulent activities. As transpired at the time of hearing, the petitioner, who was working in Excise and Taxation Department, was suspended 2-3 years back and is indulging in the business of property dealing and also is accused in a case of fraud, let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Haryana to take appropriate steps to see that action against the suspended employees does not remain pending till infinity to enable them to indulge in more illegal activities and also to see as to what checks and balances are there to see that a suspended employee does not indulge in such activities.
7. As far as the role of the Estate Office, Union Territory, Chandigarh is concerned, the speed at which its officials/officers work in a case of fraud certainly needs commendation. A common man cannot get a file moved there for months together even after visiting the office regularly, whereas in the present case, the application for issuance of No Objection Certificate was filed on 1.5.2009, which was issued on 18.5.2009. The sale deed was registered on 20.5.2009 and even letter of transfer of ownership in the name of the vendee was issued on 29.5.2009. Though after the fraud came to light, an intimation was given to the Estate Office and the transfer of property in the name of Balraj Singh Bhuttar has been cancelled, but still as per the information available with the Senior Standing Counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh, no effort was made by the Estate Officer to enquire into the entire episode and the fraud committed under his nose. The reasons therefor must be best known to the authorities concerned, as to whether it is to put the entire thing under the carpet or the effort is to save the guilty and let the dispute die its own death, is not known. A copy of the order be sent to the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh to get the matter regarding functioning of the Estate Office investigated.
8. As far as the Investigating Officer of the case is concerned, even his way of conducting the investigation of the case also cannot be appreciated. He has not conducted any investigation from the Estate Office as to how this fraud had been committed. Only Balraj Singh Bhuttar has been arrested till date. The Notary Public, who had attested and identified the vendor at the time of issuance of No Objection Certificate and one Advocate, who stood as witness in the sale deed, have not been examined. In this situation, it would be appropriate if the investigation of the case is entrusted to a senior officer so that all the links in the chain are complete.
9. The matter also needs to be considered by the Bar Council for Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh regarding the conduct of the advocates who have also played their dubious role in the entire deal. Appropriate steps are required to be taken by it also to see that dignity and honour of the profession is maintained. Copy of order be also sent to Secretary, Bar Council, Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.
10. The petition is disposed of.
