Criminal Misc. No.M-25747 of 2010 v. State of Haryana

The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Ravi Sharma against Ramesh and Naresh sons of Sheoram and Gulshan Kumar (petitioner), Halqa Patwari for cheating and carrying out fraudulent sales of the land of Ramesh and Naresh at Village Rojka Gujar. It is alleged by the complainant that he had purchased approximately 15 acres of land in Village Rojka Gujar, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon in 2007. The details relating to the purchase of land from various persons have been mentioned. The complainant had deputed his representative to check with the Halqa Patwari the documents (Farad) regarding the land that had been purchased. Cr. Misc. No.M-25747 of 2010 [2] The representatives of the complainant met one Charan Singh at Village Rithoj, who gave the representative of the complainant a duly stamped and a signed `Farad’. The said `Farad’ reflected 600/183809 share in the names of Ramesh and Naresh.

The representative of the complainant was further assured that as per Court orders `Chakbandi’ process was going on and would be soon completed, on which the market rate of the land would appreciate considerably. On the assurance of Charan Singh-the middleman, and the papers issued by Patwari Gulshan Kumar (petitioner), the complainant on 28.6.2007 entered into an agreement with Naresh and Ramesh to purchase about 15 acres of land i.e. 480/183809 share out of 600/183809. The complainant agreed to purchase 15 acres of land for a total consideration of `30 lacs and he paid earnest money of `2.5 lacs by way of cheque dated 28.6.2007 drawn on ICICI Bank for an amount of `1,40,625/-. Another cheque of the same date was also drawn on ICICI Bank for an amount of `79,375/-. In accordance with the agreement, sale deed No.2647 dated 19.9.2007 was executed at Sohna Tehsil for a sum of `17,34,375/- by Naresh.

The original sale deed was obtained by the complainant from the Tehsil office and on the basis of the same mutation was done in his name in the revenue record. After about one year when the complainant went to the office of the Patwari to inquire about the position of the `Chakbandi’ process, he was shocked to know that Ramesh and Naresh had cheated him as they had no share in the land since their father Sheoram had already sold his total share of 104/183809 share in 1985 itself. On further inquiry from the then Patwari, it also came to light that out of total land of 9190 Bighas 9 Biswas in the Village Rojka Gujar, Sheoram had Cr. Misc. No.M-25747 of 2010 [3] a share of 104/183809 which he had sold on 6.12.1985 to one Smt. Rajshree Khandelwal of Mumbai for `6,000/- vide registered sale deed No.1394. On

26.4.2007, Ramesh and Naresh sons of Sheoram had sold the same land i.e. 104/183809 of the total land to one Smt. Suman Kalra for `2 lacs vide registered sale deed No.424 dated 26.1.2007. The mutation in respect of the same was sanctioned in favour of Smt. Suman Kalra by the then Patwari Gulshan Kumar (petitioner). Thereafter, on 27.4.2007, Ramesh executed another sale deed for 32/183809 share of the same land in favour of Smt. Rashmi Garg for `50,000/- only. Mutation regarding the same was got sanctioned by Gulshan Kumar, Patwari (petitioner). Thereafter, on

19.9.2007, the two brothers Ramesh and Naresh executed the sale deed in respect of 480/183809 share of the land for `30 lacs vide sale deed No.2647 dated 19.9.2007 in favour of the complainant and the same was also mutated in his name. It is alleged that the petitioner Gulshan Kumar, Patwari despite knowing the fact that the sellers Ramesh and Naresh had no share in the land in collusion with them through agent Charan Singh entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat and defraud innocent buyers like the complainant. They had formed a syndicate and sold the land several times to each buyer which was the intentional handi-work of Patwari Gulshan Kumar (petitioner), who prepared forged documents in the names of Ramesh and Naresh showing them to be owners of certain shares and handed the documents to the prospective buyers and also assured them that `Chakbandi’ was going on and after that they would be handed over the physical possession.

The petitioner also prepared forged mutation documents in the name of different buyers. All the above named accused Cr. Misc. No.M-25747 of 2010 [4] persons had duped and cheated a number of persons adopting the same modus operandi while being fully aware that Ramesh and Naresh had no share in the land. The complainant came to know that Gulshan Kumar, Patwari (petitioner) had been transferred to Ferozepur Jhirka and Charan Singh had died. When the complainant contacted Ramesh and Naresh and confronted them with the above facts, they threatened him with dire consequences if he tried to expose them and dared him to complain where he likes. They also refused to return any amount that the complainant had invested. The complainant requested that the matter be looked into and FIR be registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon on 1.9.2009.

It is submitted that the learned Public Prosecutor had submitted that the petitioner had joined the investigation. In this regard, statement of Head Constable Shish Pal, Police Post Sohna was recorded in which it was stated that the petitioner had joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation was not required. Later on 10.8.2010, the Police in the bail application included Section 13(1)(d) of the Act which was added by the Police after a period of one year and quite beyond the limitation. It is submitted that the said offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act has been added on the statements of co-accused Ramesh and Naresh sons of Sheoram and Hem Chander alias Hemu, residents of Village Rithoj. However, the allegations that the petitioner had obtained an amount of `5 lacs from co- accused Ramesh and Naresh and sanctioned mutation No.4227, it is submitted, are totally incorrect. The mutations were sanctioned by Rattan Singh, Patwari as the petitioner was not Patwari of Village Rojka Gujar on Cr. Misc. No.M-25747 of 2010 [5]

14.7.2009 when the mutation was sanctioned. The petitioner had in fact earlier on 27.1.2009 joined as Halqa Patwari at Village Rawali, Tehsil Ferozpur Jhirka, District Mewat. The petitioner had remained as Halqa Patwari of Village Rojka Gujar from 2.3.2006 to 20.9.2007 which clearly indicates that there are false allegations against the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner joined investigation in consequence of the interim bail granted by this Court. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the purposes of investigation. It is submitted that the petitioner had remained Patwari of Halqa Garhi Wazirpur, Sohna, District Gurgaon for the period from

2.3.2006 to 2.8.2007 during which period he had prepared false documents. Sheoram son of Hukam Singh had 5 Bighas 4 Biswas of land as per Jamabandi for the year 1982-83 in Village Rojka Gujar. The said land was sold by Sheoram on 6.12.1985 to Smt. Rajshree Khandelwal and mutation No.1634 dated 8.1.1986 was sanctioned in her favour. However, despite the sale by Sheoram and sanction of mutation in favour of purchaser Smt. Rajshree Khandelwal, the petitioner kept on changing the revenue records so as to sell the land again and again. It is submitted that specimen hand- writings of the petitioner were taken on 23.10.2010 and were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban which on comparison has been found to be that of the petitioner even on documents in respect of the period for which he was not Patwari of Village Rojka Gujar. Therefore, it is submitted that during the tenure of the other Patwari, the petitioner in his own hand had changed the revenue records and mutations of the same land sanctioned on the basis of forged record. In order to unearth the entire Cr. Misc. No.M-25747 of 2010 [6] sequence of events, it is submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required even though the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act had been added later. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the record. The allegations against the petitioner indeed are serious in nature. To recount, it may be noticed that Sheoram was owner of 5 Bighas 4 Biswas of land in Village Rojka Gujar which he sold to Smt. Rajshree Khandelwal vide sale deed No.1394 dated 6.12.1985. Mutation No.1639 dated 8.1.1986 was sanctioned in favour of the purchaser Smt. Rajshree Khandelwal. Due to an inadvertent mistake, the land measuring 5 Bighas 4 Biswas which had been sold continued to be recorded in the name of Sheoram and the aforesaid mutation in favour of Smt. Rajshree Khandelwal was not incorporated in the Jamabandi for the year 1987-88. Sheoram died on

10.3.2004. The sons of Sheoram, namely, Naresh and Ramesh lodged report No.236 dated 9.1.2007 in the Roznamcha of the Patwari whereby they got mutation No.4368 sanctioned in their favour in respect of the land measuring 5 Bighas 4 Biswas of their father Sheoram which had already been sold. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that in fact Sheoram had four sons and three daughters but only Ramesh and Naresh got mutation of the land sanctioned in their favour. The petitioner Gulshan Kumar, Patwari on 22.4.2007 had prepared the Goshwara in respect of land measuring 5 Bighas 4 Biswas in favour of Ramesh and Naresh. Ramesh and Naresh in fraudulent manner sold the said land measuring 5 Bighas 4 Biswas vide sale deed No.424 dated 26.7.2007 in favour of Smt. Suman Kalra. Mutation No.4408 dated 7.5.2008 was prepared by the petitioner Cr. Misc. No.M-25747 of 2010 [7] Gulshan Kumar, Patwari and got attested from Ayub Khan, Girdawar and got sanctioned from the Tehsildar on 1.8.2007.

It is also submitted that Gulshan Kumar, Patwari (petitioner) on 1.4.2007 prepared a Goshwara in respect of the said land measuring 5 Bighas 4 Biswas in the name of Ramesh and Naresh on the basis of which Ramesh alone sold 1 Bigha 12 Biswas of land vide sale deed No.445 dated 27.4.2007 in favour of Smt. Rashmi Garg. Besides, despite there being no land in the name of Ramesh and Naresh, the Patwari (petitioner) and Girdawar in collusion and with an intention to cheat got mutation No.4410 dated 8.5.2007 entered in the name of Smt. Rashmi Garg. Thereafter, on 22.2.2007 despite there being no land in the name of Ramesh and Naresh, Gulshan Kumar, Patwari (petitioner) prepared a fake Goshwara in respect of 30 Bighas of land in the name of Ramesh and Naresh in his own hand and signed the same. This was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban and the hand-writing and signatures of the same tallied with the hand-writing of the petitioner.

The hand-writing and signatures of the petitioner have been established on the Goshwara. On 26.6.2007, Gulshan Kumar Patwari prepared a false mutation of inheritance No.4368 in favour of Ramesh and Naresh in respect of 30 Bighas of land and signed the same. On the basis of the Goshwara and mutation, Ramesh and Naresh sold 24 Bighas i.e. 15 Acres of land vide sale deed No.2647 dated 19.9.2007 in favour of Ravi Sharma (complainant) and obtained `30 lacs by cheque and `15 lacs by cash for which they gave receipt and had embezzled the same. Besides, one false mutation No.4227 dated 30.12.2007 was prepared in favour of Ravi Sharma on which false signatures of the present Patwari Rattan Singh were put. These were got Cr. Misc. No.M-25747 of 2010 [8] compared from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban and these were not found to be that of Rattan Singh, Patwari. Besides, mutation No.4227 had earlier been sanctioned in favour of Manoj Kumar son of Chetan Dass Sethi by Gulshan Kumar, Patwari and got sanctioned in his favour.

In the facts and circumstances even though the petitioner had joined the investigation and had been granted the concession of bail, however, the said facts and circumstances can be said to be well justified in requiring further custody of the petitioner after the addition of offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act so as to unearth the entire facts and circumstances and carry out effective investigations. It is well known that considerations governing the grant of pre- arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are materially different from that seeking post-arrest bail or for that matter even seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal before a higher Court. In a case where pre-arrest bail is sought, the advantage of custodial interrogation for eliciting more and useful information and material is to be kept in view. Besides, the exercise of power to grant pre-arrest bail is somewhat extra-ordinary in character. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. November 25, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*