In CRM-M-31288-2019 (O&M)-Cheating by fraudsters in property sale matter is rampant in our society; This has become cakewalk to amass wealth illegally which needs to be curbed to save innocent people, asserts P&H HC
Justice Ashok Kumar Verma [30-09-2022]

Read Order: Sumit Kathuria v. State of Punjab  

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, October 6, 2022: While dealing with a property fraud case, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has observed that such type of cheating is rampant in our society and is often adopted by fraudsters, property grabbers and unscrupulous persons by usurping hard earned money of innocent people. 

“This has become a cakewalk to amass wealth illegally over night which needs to be curbed to save the innocent people with an iron hand”, asserted Justice Ashok Kumar Verma while also holding, 

“It is well settled that mere filing of the civil suit by the complainant does not debar initiation of criminal proceedings, separately where cognizable offence is made out.”

This petition was filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR under Section 420, 120-B of the IPC (Sections 467, 468, 471 of the IPC added later on). 

Essentially, the parents of the petitioner executed an agreement to sell in favour of a company through its managing director (the complainant) in respect of a land measuring 22738.76 square yards for a sale consideration of around Rupees 20 Crore. However, on the complainant’s enquiry, it came to the forefront that the sellers owned only 17162.86 square. The complainant was given an assurance by the petitioner’s parents that necessary corrections would be done in the revenue record. The complainant paid a total of seven crore rupees (included earnest money). 

It was the case of the complainant that the petitioner alongwith his parents cheated and played fraud upon him because as per the revenue records, they were owners to the extent of only 17162.86 square. 

It was the case of the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner had nothing to do with the agreement to sell as he was neither a signatory to the same nor did he receive any amount in terms of the agreement. He added that the petitioner was not even the Director of the seller company and was sought to be implicated because his parents being the Directors of the seller-company executed the agreement to sell. 

Further, while arguing that the it was a case of civil nature, to which the complainant has given a criminal colour, the Counsel submitted that every breach of contract would not give rise to the offence of cheating, rather only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. 

The Counsel lastly argued that the petitioner was arrested by the police in June 2019 and sent to judicial custody; the investigation qua him was complete and challan was already presented before the trial court and that he was granted the benefit of interim regular bail by the High Court, thus, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars. 

After hearing the parties, the Court observed that the petitioner alongwith his parents cheated and played fraud upon the complainant by enticing him to enter into the above said agreement to sell in his favour, whereas the accused-seller was not the owner of the whole land agreed to be sold and thus, the land in question was found to be not in consonance with the revenue record. 

The Court also observed that the petitioner got interim bail on the ground that the matter will be amicably settled between the parties. Further, the Bench observed, 

“The mere enjoyment of interim benefit granted by this Court does not in any manner lessen the gravity of offence and allegations which need to be considered prima facie on merits. It may perhaps send the wrong message in case regular bail is granted to the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner is writ large in the matter.”

Also, the Bench added that even after taking a hefty amount as earnest money against the land in question from the complainant, the petitioner and his parents backed out not only from the terms of the agreement to sell but also from their statements made before the Court and the Mediator. “Such type of act and conduct is required to be viewed with all seriousness. As noticed above, petitioner’s and his father’s antecedents are not good. Even two more FIRs have been registered against them”, the Bench added. 

Against this background, the Bench opined that it is well settled that mere filing of the civil suit by the complainant does not debar initiation of criminal proceedings, separately where cognizable offence is made out. 

Showing its concern for such fraudulent practices which are rampant in our society, the Bench added, 

“Needless to say, such type of cheating is rampant in our society and is often adopted by fraudsters, property grabbers and unscrupulous persons by usurping the hard earned money of innocent people. This has become a cakewalk to amass wealth illegally overnight which needs to be curbed to save the innocent people with an iron hand.”

Thus, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and having regard to the seriousness of the allegations of enticing, fraud and cheating and prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence in connivance with each other and coupled with the antecedents of the petitioner and his co-accused the Court did not deem it a fit case for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner.