Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.@mdashThe compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the
instant 2nd petition for anticipatory bail and emanating from the record, is that, complainant Chet Ram is a senior citizen and old person of 78
years. He is allottee/owner of House, bearing No. 701/11 Bapu Dham Colony, Sector 26, Chandigarh. His son Prem Chand (petitioner) started
residing with him in the same house. On the fateful day, the complainant came and found Ravinder Singh son of Ajit Singh staying in his house. He
did not allow him (complainant) to enter into his house, illegally removed all the documents, luggage and other household articles. When the
complainant confronted his son Prem Chand in this regard, then, he threatened him with dire consequences of elimination. On inquiry, it revealed
that petitioner has illegally agreed to mortgage the house of his father Chet Ram (complainant) to Ravinder Singh son of Ajit Singh, received the
consideration amount, prepared forged documents and cheated his own father. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint
of complainant, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner, by virtue of FIR No. 205 dated 23.7.2012 (Annexure P1), on accusation of
having committed the offences punishable under sections 420 and 465 IPC by the police of Police Station Sector 26, Chandigarh, in the manner
indicated here-in-above. Having exercised and remained unsuccessful of his right before the Additional Sessions Judge, now the petitioner has
preferred the present 2nd petition for anticipatory bail in the pointed criminal case, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire
matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant 2nd petition in this respect.
3. Ex facie, the arguments of learned counsel that since the petitioner was residing in the house of his father and all the essential ingredients of
section 420 IPC are not complete, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, are neither tenable nor the observations of Hon''ble
Apex Court in case Md. Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein, while
deciding the criminal appeal, it was observed that ""to constitute an offence u/s 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of
such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived (i) to deliver any property to any person or (ii) to make, alter or
destroy wholly or in part a valuable security, which is capable of being converted into a valuable security."" There can hardly be any dispute with
regard to the aforesaid observations, but the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the instant 2nd petition for anticipatory bail in
this context.
4. As evident from the record that complainant Chet Ram, father of petitioner, was allottee/owner of the house in question. He permitted the
petitioner to reside there. Taking the benefit of undue advantage and absence of the complainant, the petitioner cheated his own father and
fraudulently agreed to mortgage his house to Ravinder Singh son of Ajit Singh, created forged documents and put him in its possession. Therefore,
prima facie, all the essential ingredients of the indicated offences are complete and the contrary submissions of learned counsel for petitioner ""stricto
sensu"" deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances.
5. Not only that, during the course of the investigation, the petitioner agreed to get the house vacated by paying back money to Ravinder Singh and
promised to hand over the keys to his father, by means of writing/compromise (Annexure P3), which, in substance, is as under:-
It is submitted that I Prem Chand s/o Sh. Chet Ram r/o H.No. 701/11 Bapudham Colony, Sector 26, Chandigarh (House No. 44, Parshant Vihar
Baltana, District Mohali) have mortgaged House No. 701/11 with Sh. Ravinder Singh s/o Sh. Ajit Singh village Maloya in lieu of Rs. 4,25,000/-
and I would get the house vacated on 12.04.2012 by paying back the money. I would hand over the keys of the house to my father along with all
the documents after getting it vacated. In case my father dies in a year than the share of this house be given to all the brothers (Seven Brothers).
After the death of the father if the house is sold than the share be given to Prem Chand as well.
6. It is not a matter of dispute that petitioner had earlier filed a petition for anticipatory bail, bearing CRM No. M-32281 of 2012, which was
withdrawn by his counsel, to enable him to file a fresh petition after complying with the compromise (Annexure P3), vide order dated 12.10.2012.
7. Instead of complying with the compromise/undertaking, the petitioner has preferred the instant 2nd petition for anticipatory bail. Meaning
thereby, he has the intention to cheat his father from the very beginning. As indicated earlier, taking undue advantage and absence of his father, the
petitioner illegally agreed to mortgage the house, prepared the forged documents and received an amount of Rs. 4,25,000/-. It is strange case of
cheating his father by his son. The complainant purchased the house in dispute after spending his hard-earned entire earnings of his life to enable
him to live in peace, but it was the petitioner, who has cheated him, illegally agreed to mortgage the property to Ravinder Singh and received the
pointed amount. Therefore, to me, since the forged agreement/documents and mortgaged amount are yet to be recovered, so, the custodial
interrogation of petitioner is essential. In case, he is allowed the benefit of anticipatory bail, then, the recovery of agreement/documents, mortgaged
amount and effective investigation is not possible, which would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution.
8. Moreover, the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest, recovery of agreement/documents,
mortgaged amount from the petitioner and investigation by the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police
and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial
discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. At the same time, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the
investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby.
9. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course
of trial of main case, the present petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Needless to mention
that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on the merits of the case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so
recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition in this relevant connection.
