Gursimrat Singh Saundh vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-42074 of 2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
207
CRM-M-42074 of 2026
Date of Decision: 31.08.2026
Gursimrat Singh Saundh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT

Present:- Mr. J.S.Jaidka, Advocate with
Ms. Garima Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Amarpreet Singh, Advocate
for the complainant.
N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section
482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of
anticipatory bail in FIR No. 169 dated 30.05.2026, registered under
Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding
to Section 420 IPC, 1860), at Police Station Division No. 1, District
Jalandhar.
AMIT RANA
2026.09.03 09:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42074 of 2026 -2-
2. The FIR in the present case has been registered on the
basis of the application moved by Dr. Amardeep Singh Duggar and
the same has been reproduced below:-
“Application No. 697-DCP dated 02.07.2025. To, The
Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Jalandhar.
Subject: Regarding legal action concerning the
fraudulent sale and registration of my Plot No. 104, area
10 Marlas, by Gursimrat Singh Sondh, President of the
Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar Co-operative House Building
Society, Head Office Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar, to
Pargan Singh, with mala fide intention, through
fraudulent means and cheating, despite the said plot
having been registered in my name in the year 2007 by
Surinder Singh, the Joint Secretary of the same society,
which was established in the year 2000. Respected Sir,
With reference to the subject cited above, it is submitted
that I, Dr. Amardeep Singh, retired Senior Medical
Officer, s/o Late S. Davinder Singh, resident of 801,
Ambala, Jalandhar Heights-2, Jalandhar, Punjab, state
that we had purchased a plot, being Plot No. 104, area
10 Marlas, situated at Jalandhar City Bypass, near R.J.
Cold Store, as per Jamabandi for the year 1994-95,
Khata No. 6531, 5214/1994, 5213/Jalandhar, Jamabandi
No. Khata 6532, 5215/6533, 5216/6534, 5241/6587,
Khasra No. 15641(1-12), 30421/15638(0-18),
15640(4-16), 15641(4-11), 15642(11-10), 15646(12-10),
15639(1-9), 15647(2-6), 15630 (4-13), out of a total area
of 33 Kanals, being Property No. 104, area 10 Marlas,
measuring 30'x60', from the Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar
Co-operative House Building Society, Head Office
Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar. The sale deed for the same
AMIT RANA
2026.09.03 09:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42074 of 2026 -3-
was executed by the society's Honorary Joint Secretary,
Surinder Singh, son of Bhan Singh, resident of
Jalandhar, on 07.06.2000, vide Deed No. 1869/1, in the
name of my mother, Gurcharan Kaur, and myself,
Amardeep Singh, son of Davinder Singh, son of Kishan
Singh, residents of 1941, Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar,
Jalandhar, by appearing before the Registrar. As per the
deed, possession was handed over to us at the time of
execution. The mutation of the same was subsequently
sanctioned in our names in the records of the Revenue
Department. The entry was sanctioned in the Jamabandi,
Hadbast No. 307, Tehsil Jalandhar-1, District Jalandhar,
and to date, it is recorded in our names as per the
records of the Revenue Department. A short while ago, I
came to know that our aforesaid plot has been sold by
the President of the said Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar
Co-operative House Building Society, Jalandhar, namely
Gursimrat Singh Sondh, resident of 500, New Jawahar
Nagar, Jalandhar, Mobile No. 9888845454, to Pargan
Singh, son of Singara Singh, in the year 2007 for a
substantial amount, and a Sale Deed No. 10985 dated
12.02.2007 has been executed. Subsequently, this plot
has now been sold by Pargan Singh to Kamlesh
Chaurasia, son of Lal Chaurasia, in the year 2019, and a
Sale Deed No. 6260 dated 13.09.2019 has been executed.
I have also come to know that Kamlesh Chaurasia has
taken a bank loan against my plot. Thus, Gursimrat
Singh, the President of the society, despite having
knowledge that the society had sold the plot to us in the
year 2000 and that its sale deed and mutation are in our
names, has, through forged documents, with dishonesty,
fraudulent manipulation, forgery, and conspiracy, sold
AMIT RANA
2026.09.03 09:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42074 of 2026 -4-
our plot to Pargan Singh and has thereby committed a
criminal offence. In this regard, I submitted a written
complaint before the Tehsildar, Jalandhar, on
27.06.2025, requesting that the mutation of these two
forged sale deeds of our aforesaid plot not be sanctioned.
A copy of the same is attached herewith. Therefore, I
request that an inquiry into these two forged sale deeds
of our aforesaid Plot No. 104, area 10 Marlas, situated
at Jalandhar City Bypass, near R.J. Cold Store,
Jalandhar, be conducted by a senior officer, and strict
legal action be taken against this gang by registering a
case, so that such a gang does not cheat anyone else.
Your kind consideration in this matter would be greatly
appreciated. Thank you. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Amardeep
Singh, Dr. Amardeep Singh Duggal, son of Davinder
Singh Duggal, resident of 801, Urbana, Jalandhar
Heights-2, Jalandhar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued
that from a bare perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-1), it is evident that
the matter in question pertained to the period starting from the year
2000 to 2007 and the complaint has been moved by the complainant
after a delay of about 18 years. He further submits that the case of the
prosecution was based on documentary evidence, which has already
been taken into possession by the police and no purpose would be
solved by sending the petitioner behind the bars. Apart from that,
admittedly, the property was transferred to Kamlesh Chaurasia, who
had obtained loan from the bank and the bank had verified the
ownership of Kamlesh Chaurasia before extending the loan to him.
AMIT RANA
2026.09.03 09:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42074 of 2026 -5-
Still further, the petitioner as well as the Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar
Cooperative House Building Society have already instituted a suit for
declaration in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar,
(Annexure P-2), and the matter is still sub-judice before the Civil
Court. Thus, it is apparent that the dispute between the parties is
essentially civil in nature and has been wrongly given the texture of a
criminal offence. Apart from that, it is also clear from the facts of the
present case that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not
be required.
4. On the other hand, a detailed status report has been filed
by way of an affidavit of the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Sub-
Division North, Police Commissionerate Jalandhar, and the same has
already been taken on record.
5. Learned State counsel submits that as per the record, plot
No. 104 measuring 10 marlas, situated near R.J. Cold Store,
Jalandhar, which is the subject matter of the present controversy, was
also sold by the Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar Cooperative Housing
Building Society in favour of the present complainant and his mother
by registered sale deed No. 1869/1, dated 07.06.2000. Even, the
mutation in respect of said transaction was duly sanctioned in the
revenue record in the name of the complainant and his mother.
However, despite the earlier transaction, the present petitioner
executed a registered sale deed No. 10985 dated 12.02.2007, in favour
of Pargan Singh, in respect of the same very plot No. 104. The
AMIT RANA
2026.09.03 09:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42074 of 2026 -6-
execution of the sale deed by the petitioner was a material piece of
documentary evidence directly connecting him with the transaction
forming subject matter of the present FIR, and he had received a sum
of Rs. 5 lakhs in cash from Pargan Singh. Later on, Pargan Singh
further sold the same property in favour of Kamlesh Chaurasia by
registered sale deed No. 6260 dated 13.09.2019. Thereafter, it was
found that Kamlesh Chaurasia had constructed a residential house
over the same property and also obtained the loan against the said
property from a bank. Thus, the complainant had been cheated by the
present petitioner and the Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar Cooperative
Housing Building Society. Learned State counsel further submits that
the documentary evidence of the society clearly established that the
petitioner was serving as a Secretary of the Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar
Cooperative Housing Building Society at the relevant time. Still
further, the case against the petitioner was supported by documentary
evidence and huge financial loss has been caused to the complainant
in the present case.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record very carefully.
7. From the record it is evident that, firstly, Guru Tegh
Bahadur Housing Cooperative Housing Building Society sold the plot
No. 104 through its honorary Joint Secretary, namely, Surinder Singh,
to the complainant and his mother on 07.06.2000. Even, a mutation
was sanctioned in their favour and neither the petitioner nor the
AMIT RANA
2026.09.03 09:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-42074 of 2026 -7-
society were entitled to sell it further. Still further, the present
petitioner, while acting as the office bearer of the society, had sold the
same plot in favour of Pargan Singh by way of registered sale deed
dated 12.02.2007. Thereafter, Pargan Singh had sold the same plot to
Kamlesh Chaurasia vide registered sale deed No. 6260 dated
13.09.2019, and Kamlesh Chaurasia had constructed a house on the
said building. Thus, keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations
in the present case, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of
anticipatory bail. Still further, the complainant was not initially aware
of the further sale transaction in the present case, and when he went to
the spot, he came to know that Kamlesh Chaurasia had already raised
construction on the building owned by him. Thus, it cannot be held
that the FIR has been unnecessarily delayed by the complainant in the
present case.
8. Finding no merits, the present petition is ordered to be
dismissed.
31.08.2026 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
AMIT RANA
2026.09.03 09:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document