CRM-M-25117-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 104 CRM-M-25117-2025 DECIDED ON: 08.05.2025 ABHAY SINGH AND ANOTHER ...PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr.Sudhir Rana, Advocate with Mr. Vikramjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Aditya Vermani, Advocate for the complainant. *** SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J 1. Prayer This petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.332 dated 09.09.2024 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at P.S. Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram. 2. Facts Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR reads as under :- ‘To The Commissioner of Police Gurugram, Haryana. Subject: Application for registration of FIR against: 1. Smt. Nirmala Devi W/o Om Singh S/o Late Sh. Chandgi Ram 2. Om Singh S/o Late Sh. Chandgi Ram (Μ: 9991886707) 3. Abhay Singh S/o Om Singh Ram (M:9910014662) 4. Surjeet Singh S/o Om Singh (M: 9711844707) All resident of V.P.O. SHAM SUNDER 2025.06.10 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25117-2025 2 Bilaspur, Tehsil Manesar and Distt. Gurugram. 5. Sunil Kataria S/o Late Sh. Sukhbir R/o Ashok Vihar, Gurugram, Haryana (Son-in-Law of the accused no. 1 and 2 (Nirmala and Om Singh) (M: 9891412190) 6. Puran Sio Sh. Ram Chander Rio Tihara, Bawal, Rewari (Father-in-law of accused no. 3 Abhay Singh) FOR COMMITTING CHEATING, FORGERY, FRAUD, AND IMPERSONATION AND GOT THE PROPERTY OF THE COMPLAINANT TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF THE ACCUSED NO. I UNLAWFULLY, ILLEGALLY. WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT OF THE COMPLAINANT. Sir, It is submitted as follows: 1. That the complainant is a peace loving and law-abiding citizen of the country whereas the accused persons have no care and respect for the law of the land. 2. That the complainant is the owner in possession of 10 marlas of land being 10/110th share of 5 Kanal 10 marlas of land (viz 300 square yard) comprised in Kewat No. 27, Khata No. 37, rectangle no. 14, Khasra number 15/2/2/2 (5-10) measuring 5 Kanal 10 Marlas, vide Farad Jamabandi for the year 2003-2004 situated in village Naharpur Roopa, Tehsil and District Gurugram. 3. That the Accused No. 2 is the maternal uncle and accused no. I is the maternal aunt of the complainant whereas accused no. 3 is the son of the accused no. 1 and 2 and being the close relatives of the complainant, the accused used to visit at the house of the complainant frequently. 4. That the complainant is permanently residing at house no. RZ-38 Makasudabad extension colony, Nangloi road, Najafgarh, Delhi which is far from village Naharpur Roopa where the property of the complainant situates. That on or about Ist July 2023, the complainant visited the property for looking after his property where the accused no. 2 and 3 met the complainant who told the complainant that he has now nothing to do with the property as the same has already been transferred on his behalf in the name of accused no. 1 and now it is the accused no. I who has continued to be the owner of the property. Upon this, the complainant engaged counsel and got the revenue records as well as the other relevant records of the property of the complainant checked and then the complainant came to know that the property of the complainant has been fraudulently transferred in the name of accused no. I in an illegal and fraudulent manner on the foot of the impact Civil Court Award/decree allegedly passed on 30th March 2010 by the court of Shri Dhani Ram Yadav, Presiding Officer, Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat (Samjhauta Sadan), Gurgaon in civil case number 478 of 14th September 2009 titled as "Smt. Nirmala Devi versus SHAM SUNDER 2025.06.10 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25117-2025 3 Om Singh and others". It is further revealed that the mutation no. 3896 has also been entered on 25th May 2010 and sanctioned on 9th June 2010 based on the above said impugned Decree/award in the revenue records in the name of the accused no. 1 (Copy of impugned Award dated 25.05.2010 is Annexure 1. Application for per litigation mediation is Annexure 2, alleged GPAs are Annexure- and Annexure- 4 respectively). 5. That on coming to know the above said facts the complainant inspected the case file of the above said suit in the record room and the complainant came to know that the accused no. 2 and 3 succeeded un filing a suit against themselves and appeared in the court as the so called GPA holders of the complainant and suffered a collusive decree in favour of the accused no. I by allegedly filing admitted written statement, written compromise as well as suffering a statement in the court on oath on the basis of impugned General Power of Attorneys allegedly registered from the office of Sub Registrar, Bokaro, Jharkhand It is pertiment to mention here that the complainant had neither executed the impugned GPAs nor bears the signature of the complamant nor appeared in the alleged office of Sub Registrar, Bokaro nor put his signature on the impugned CiPAs before the Sub Registrar, Bokaro and hence impugned signatures apprehended on these GPAs are forged and tabocated one. It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant has neither visited Bokaro nor he had ever appeared belore Sub Registrar, Bokarao It is further revealed that the impugned APPLICATION PRELITIGATION STAGE FOR SETTLEMENT was filed on the afke, false and concocted assertion to the effect: "That the applicant and respondents are relatives to each other and belong to one and the same family. They belong to Hindu religion. The property in question was ancestral property purchased by the for-father of the applicant out of the joint Hindu l'anul funds Petitioner are having pre- existing and subsisting right in the property in question" It is pertinent to mention here that the above said averments of the accused persons in the application prelitigation stage for settlement are totally wrong, fase and fictitious as the property mentioned in para no 2 of the complaint is a self- acquired property which has been purchased by the somplainant vide registered sale deed vasika no. 4251 duly executed on 05.06.1995 and registered on 00 06.1995 and mutation no. 2528 was also entered in favour of the complainant in revenue record on 15.01 1998 (Copy of the mutation is Annexure-4'A) 6. That the impact general power of attorney allegedly executed on behalf of the complamant SHAM SUNDER 2025.06.10 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25117-2025 4 and pertaining to property measuring 200 square yard qua land comprised in Khasra no. 14/15/2/2 in favour of accused no. 3 and another impugned general power of attorney allegedly executed by the complainant pertaining to plot measuring 100 square yard qua land comprised in Khasra no. 15/14/2/2/2 in favour of accused no. 2 and hence both the impugned general power of attorneys are absolutely false, forged, bogus, concocted and fabricated document managed by the accused no. 2 and 3 in collision with each other who are real father and son with the ulterior motive to illegally grab the valuable property of the complainant as well as to deprive the complainant from his valuable rights, title and interest of the property in an illegal, fraudulent, decisive and unlawful manner. 7. That the highheaderiess and dishonesty of the accused did not stop here, they in furtherance of their illegal act and colluding with the other have filed certain false, bogus, forged, and fabricated agreement to sale, possession certificate, receipts, affidavits with their written statement in civil suit titled "Harbir Vs Nirmala etc.". That the complainant has never executed the alleged agreement to sale with the accused nor he has executed the alleged receipts, alleged affidavits, alleged GPAs or alleged possession certificate in favor of the accused persons. All the alleged documents are totally illegal, null, void, forged and fabricated documents got prepared by the accused in collusion with each other only with malafide and dishonest intentions by deceitful means without the notice and knowledge and consent of the complainant. The complainant has never received any amount for the sale of the property from the accused persons nor he has ever executed the alleged false, bogus, fabricated documents mentioned above. 8. That the accused no. 4 is also the son of accused no. 1 2, and brother of accused no. 3 and accused no. 5 is the son in law of accused no. 1 and 2. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused no. 5 is also a habitual offender and many cases are still pending against him in District Court Gurugram. That the above stated forged documents do not bear the signatures of thecomplainant and the complainant has never executed the alleged documents in favor of the accused no. 3 and 4, nor he has ever parted with the ownership or possession of his property to the accused persons. All the documents are manufactured one which have been created by the accused in collusion and in connivance with cach other with the ulterior motive to usurp the property of the complainant. 9. The accused persons in collusion with the witnesses, who were and are the notorious persons, have forged and SHAM SUNDER 2025.06.10 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25117-2025 5 fabricated the signature of the complainant and has created the bogus and fictitious GPAs, agreement to sale, receipts, affidavits, settlement deed, and possession certificate to deprive the complainant from his valuable property. That the accused n. 1 to 4 are hardened criminals and many FIRS has been lodged against them for trespassing, forgery, taking illegal possession. It is also pertinent to mention here that the accused no. 2 Omsingh has been convicted by the Court of Sh. Mukesh Kumar, JMFC, Pataudi in case FIR No. 157/2014 under section 452/506/325 etc. PS Bilaspur. There also one FIR No. 230 dated 27.06.2021 under section 147/149/323/427/506 IPC at PS Bilaspur was also registered against accused no. 1, 2, 4 and wife of accused no. 3 and 4 and the case bearing no. CHI/20/2022 under section 147/149/323/427/506 IPC P.S. Bilaspur, which is pending in the Court of Sh. Mukesh Kumar, JMFC, Gurugram (Copy of the Judgement dated 23.03.2023 is Annexure-5 and FIR No. 230 is Annexure-6). 10. That the above stated facts clearly proves that the accused persons are habitual offenders who are involved in forgery, fabrication of documents and get the land/property of innocent persons transferred in their favor. Hence, the accused and their henchmen and all other persons who are found to be involved in the aforesaid conspiracy are liable to be prosecuted and punished for the offences committed by them punishable under IPC. 11. That if such trespass and unlawful grabbing of the property is permitted to take place, rule of jungle shall prevail and faith and confidence reposed by ordinary citizens in the administration of justice shall be shaken. Strictest possible action deserves to be taken against Smt. Nirmala, Om Singh, Abhay Singh, Surjeet Singh, Sunil Kataria and Puran. It is prayed that an F.I.R. may be registered under section 420/476/468/471/120B IPC against the accused named above and the wrongdoers/accused may kindly be put behind the bars in the interest of justice. Date: 17.05.2024 Complainant SD/- HARBIR Harbir Singh S/o Sh. Sumer Singh, Resident of RZ-38, B-Block, Maksudabad Colony, Najafgarh, Delhi.’ 3. Contentions On behalf of petitioners: Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that, according to the FSL report, the thumb impression on SHAM SUNDER 2025.06.10 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25117-2025 6 the General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 27.12.2004 has been verified as genuine. This clearly indicates that the complainant did, in fact, sell a 20 square yard plot of land to Petitioner No.1, Abhay Singh. However, this material fact has been deliberately concealed by the complainant in the FIR. A review of the complainant's statement recorded before the Permanent Lok Adalat further reveals that he accepted the sale consideration and sold the disputed property to the petitioners and their family members. Despite this, in the present FIR, he now claims that he never executed any GPA in favour of the petitioners or their relatives. It is asserted that the disputed land was sold to the petitioners and their family member in the year 2004, and they have been in possession of it ever since. A permanent house was also constructed on the property by the petitioners nearly 17 years ago. Given these facts, the complainant’s claim that he only became aware of the property transfer in 2023 lacks credibility. It is highly improbable that he remained unaware of the developments on the property for 17 years. The present FIR appears to be a result of the recent appreciation in property values in the area. Moreover, the complainant has already instituted a civil suit bearing CS No. 1987 of 2023, titled “Harbir Singh v. Nirmala and Others” wherein he also filed an application seeking a permanent injunction. However, to date, he has not been granted any interim relief by the civil court. SHAM SUNDER 2025.06.10 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25117-2025 7 On behalf of respondent-State and complainant Learned State Counsel, assisted by the complainant’s counsel, submits that there is a deliberate attempt to fabricate and use false documents. The thumb impressions of Harbir Singh do not match those on the affidavit dated 12.05.2008, casting serious doubt on the authenticity of documents relied upon by the petitioners. Harbir Singh was neither made a party to the proceedings before the Permanent Lok Adalat nor was his statement recorded; the award was obtained in his absence. One of the petitioners is already a convict, and impersonation and document fabrication are commonly used to unlawfully dispossess rightful property owners. The investigation is ongoing, and custodial interrogation is required to uncover the full extent of the conspiracy, including the creation and use of forged documents and the involvement of each accused. The FSL report corroborates the falsity of the documents, supporting the allegation of a fraudulent scheme. Hence, dismissal of the present petition is sought. 4. Analysis On perusal of FIR and documents, it is evident that there exists a prima facie case of deliberate fabrication and falsification of documents, with the intent to usurp the lawful rights of the complainant, Harbir Singh. The matter pertains to a dispute involving allegations of land transfer through forged documents. The General Power of Attorney (GPA) executed at Gwalior allegedly relates to 200 square yards of land acquired by the complainant via sale deed No. 4251 dated 06.06.1995. The thumb impression on this Gwalior GPA has been SHAM SUNDER 2025.06.10 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25117-2025 8 matched with that of the complainant. However, a subsequent GPA dated 16.06.2008, registered at Bokaro, along with accompanying documents i.e. affidavit, agreement to sell, possession certificate, Will, and final payment receipt, bear thumb impressions which, according to the forensic science laboratory (FSL) report, do not match those of the complainant, thereby casting serious doubt on the veracity and authenticity of the documents relied upon by the petitioners. Such falsification, if established, constitutes an offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. Although the petitioners assert physical possession of the property and rely on one document bearing a matching thumb impression, the serious allegations of forgery supported by forensic evidence raise substantial concerns. Consequently, the Court finds that the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage may hinder a comprehensive investigation into the forgery allegations. Further, the complainant, Harbir Singh, was neither impleaded as a party nor was his statement recorded before the Permanent Lok Adalat, and the award was thus rendered ex parte. This undermines the very foundation of the award, rendering it susceptible to challenge under the principles laid down in “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Sinha”, (2008) 7 SCC 454, wherein the Supreme Court emphasized the need for effective participation of parties in Lok Adalat proceedings. Moreover, reliance can be placed on “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal” , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it was held that when allegations disclose a cognizable offence and are supported by prima SHAM SUNDER 2025.06.10 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25117-2025 9 facie evidence, investigation and even custodial interrogation may be justified to unearth the truth and ascertain the culpability of each accused. The prosecution also highlights that one of the petitioners is a convicted individual with a record of fraudulent dealings, and that impersonation and fabrication are often employed as tools in property related offences to wrongfully dispossess legitimate owners. Such conduct not only amounts to criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC but also poses a threat to public trust in legal processes. 5. Conclusion Given the gravity of the allegations, the ongoing nature of the investigation, and the potential requirement of custodial interrogation to fully uncover the modus operandi and role of each accused, the present petition does not warrant interference at this stage. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) JUDGE 08.05.2025 sham Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No SHAM SUNDER 2025.06.10 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document