Salochana Chauhan vs State Of Punjab on 16 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Salochana Chauhan vs State Of Punjab on 16 February, 2024

Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul

Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                             AT CHANDIGARH
                                                       Date of decision: February 16th, 2024
                    Salochana Chauhan


                    State of Punjab


                    Present:        Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate
                                    with Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate
                                    for the petitioner.

                                    Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, Assistant Advocate General,

                                    Mr. Saurabh Garg, Advocate
                                    for Mr. Gunjan Rishi, Advocate
                                    for the complainant.

                    MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)

Petitioner is seeking the concession of bail under Section

439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in case FIR No.120 dated

21.11.2023 under Sections 406, 420 of the IPC registered at

Police Station Phase-8, S.A.S. Nagar.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, inter alia,

contends that totally false and fabricated allegations have been levelled

against the petitioner of having entered into a joint venture agreement

with the complainant for developing some real estate project in Solan,

Himachal Pradesh. It has been submitted that in fact, the said agreement

was a fabricated and forged document in which regard a complaint dated

21.11.2023 (Annexure P-3) had also been made to the police, however,

the police instead of proceeding against the complainant, had chosen to

wrongly challan the petitioner and her husband in the case at hand.

It has been further submitted that the petitioner has now
2024.02.19 16:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document.
been in custody since 09.12.2023 and there is no likelihood of the trial

concluding anytime in the near future since the charges have also not

been framed, coupled with 15 witnesses having been cited by the


3. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently

opposed the prayer and submissions made by the learned senior counsel.

It has been submitted that the joint venture agreement being a forged

document is nothing but an afterthought and a defence, which the

petitioner apparently is trying to create in her favour. It has been brought

to the notice of this Court that the petitioner and co-accused had played

a fraud on even the person, to whom they had in violation of the joint

venture agreement sold the property in question, as he too had also now

lodged an FIR against them, which left no manner of doubt about the

complicity of the petitioner in the crime in question.

4. Learned State counsel, on instructions, has further

submitted that the complainant had moved his complaint on 28.02.2024

and thereafter, the petitioner had been repeatedly called by the police to

join investigation and not even once had she come up with the version,

which has been brought forth before this Court today. He has thus,

submitted that it is one of those cases, wherein the petitioner is evidently

trying to create defence in her favour and trump up a new version. It has

also been submitted that the petitioner has also defrauded other persons

through a similar modus operandi. Learned State counsel has further

apprised this Court that the investigation in the case in hand is complete

as the challan stands presented and the case is now fixed for framing of

charges before the learned trial Court on 26.02.2024.

2024.02.19 16:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

relevant material on record.

6. Prima facie, there are serious and specific allegations

against the petitioner of cheating the complainant to the tune of more

than `8 crore, in connivance with other co-accused. The petitioner

appears to be the kingpin of the crime in question as the money in

question was given to her and even the agreement to sell was executed

between her and the complainant.

7. In the wake of the seriousness of charges levelled against

the petitioner, this Court does not deem it fit to extend the concession of

bail to the petitioner.

8. The instant petition stands dismissed.

9. However, it is made clear that anything observed

hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the

merits of the case.

                    February 16th, 2024                       (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
                    Puneet                                           JUDGE

                                 Whether speaking/reasoned       :        Yes

                                 Whether reportable              :        No

2024.02.19 16:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *