Property cases involving fraud can't be just civil disputes: Punjab and Haryana HC

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, September 23

In a significant judgment liable to change the way property frauds are dealt with, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that matters involving cheating and fraud cannot be taken away from the preview of “criminal wrong” by describing them as civil disputes. The High Court also made it clear that the cheating of the gullible by the property grabbers was widespread and required to be curbed firmly.

Accused denied anticipatory bail

The matter was brought to the High Court’s notice after an accused moved a plea for anticipatory bail in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case

Dismissing the plea, Justice Ashok Kumar Verma added it was well settled that Article 21 of the Constitution on protection of life and personal liberty was not an absolute right

“Such type of cheating is rampant in our society and is often adopted by fraudsters, property grabbers and unscrupulous persons by selling the property of innocent people further to a third party at their back thereby usurping their hard earned money. 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,” Justice Ashok Kumar Verma asserted.

The matter was brought to the High Court’s notice after an accused moved a plea for anticipatory bail in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. Appearing before Justice Verma’s Bench, his counsel contended that attempt was to give “the colour of a criminal wrong” to a land dispute purely of civil nature between the petitioner and the complainant. It was at best a case of specific performance.

Justice Verma asserted that the petitioner had been specifically named in the FIR. A specific role was attributed to him that he, along with the co-accused, cheated and duped the complainant. There were, rather, “very grave” and serious allegations of fraud that he and co-accused sold a plot to some other person on March 30 after taking full and final payment against it from the complainant’s husband and a co-purchaser. This was allegedly done without cancelling the general power of attorney executed in the complainant’s favour.

Making it clear that such an act and conduct was required to be viewed with all seriousness, Justice Verma added the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was necessary for complete and effective probe. In case the same was denied to the investigating agency, it would leave several gaps and loopholes, adversely affecting the probe, which was uncalled for. “It could not be said to be a litigation purely of civil nature and was, rather, required to be taken seriously.”