TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 616
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') at Police Station City Batala, District Batala. On 29.06.2020, the following order was passed:- "Heard through video conferencing. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a total mismatch as regards the contents of the FIR and the investigation which has been carried out on the basis of the FIR. It has further been contended that though the FIR talks about the purchase of jewellery by the petitioners on behalf of a third person and giving a cheque to the complainant on behalf of that third person, the investigation talks of a wholly different issue that is regarding the issuance of power of attorney in favour of the petitioners by the complainant. Notice of motion. On ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted that even subsequently, another FIR No.127 dated 21.08.2019 under Sections 420, 406, 34 IPC, Police Station City Batala, District Batala, was also registered against the aforesaid two persons i.e. Jaswinder Kaur and Surinder Pal Singh. Learned senior counsel has also submitted that even the complainant has filed complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the N.I. Act'), against Jaswinder Kaur and Surinder Pal Singh, which are pending before the Court at Batala and therefore, the petitioners never dealt on their behalf with the complainant. It is further argued that in fact, the dispute between the complainant and his mother arose with the petitioners, on account of a registered General Power....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioners has further argued that the police, well within its powers, could have registered another FIR with regard to the offences having different date and incidents but no such amendment in the FIR is permissible in law. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that it is own case of the complainant, as per the DDRs that when the agreement to sell was executed by the complainant in favour of petitioner No.1, a GPA was also registered. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has referred to the contents of the agreement dated 22.06.2017, which was entered into between the complainant - Sumit Kumar, his mother Usha Rani with Bhawna Khosla through her brother-in-law i.e. petitioner No.1 Sohit Khosla and signe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is further submitted that the matter is already pending before the various Courts and is of civil nature and just to put pressure on the petitioners, the present FIR has been registered to give it a colour of criminal litigation. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that he has the instructions to say that the petitioners are ready to deposit the amount of Rs. 10 lacs with the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, subject to final outcome of the case, to be kept in an FDR. In reply, counsel for the State assisted by counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the complainant has given the first application dated 21.02.2020 regarding the chea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Khosla received Rs. 50 lacs through HDFC bank and another amount of Rs. 50 lacs from Usha Rani on 20.12.2017 through HDFC bank. It is also stated that once the agreement was cancelled, there was no occasion for petitioner No.1 to act upon, on behalf of the petitioner as per G.P.A. while entering into agreement to sell in favour of Damandeep Singh and Barinder Pal Singh. Counsel for the complainant has further argued that in fact, the fraud has been played with the complainant as the petitioner No.1 tried to sell the property on the basis of the GPA, which was later on cancelled, on throw away prices and received Rs. 10 lacs as earnest money. It is further submitted that the agreement to sell dated 04.12.2019 in favour of Damandeep Singh a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tering two DDR Nos.49 and 50 dated 19.06.2020, certain new facts on the basis of the complaints given by the petitioners were added in the present FIR, a procedure which is unknown to the criminal law. There is no such provision in Cr.P.C. for amending the contents of the FIR wherein new allegations are with regard to different transactions like the agreement to sell as set up by the complainant. It is also a matter of record that various litigations are pending between the parties before the Civil Court as well as before the Criminal Court where the complaints under the N.I. Act are pending. In two civil suits filed by the complainant, which were filed after giving the complaints to the police forming basis of the FIR/two DDRs, no such al....