Rise In Property Frauds With NRIs 'Disturbing', Affects Public Trust In State's Real Estate Ecosystem: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Aiman J. Chishti

21 May 2025 4:30 PM IST

  • Rise In Property Frauds With NRIs Disturbing, Affects Public Trust In States Real Estate Ecosystem: Punjab & Haryana High Court

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court has expressed concern over the growing number of property fraud cases against Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), terming it a “disturbing trend."While refusing to grant pre-arrest bail to accused persons who allegedly sold the property of an NRI by impersonating the owner, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "This case is yet another example of a disturbing trend...

    The Punjab and Haryana High Court has expressed concern over the growing number of property fraud cases against Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), terming it a “disturbing trend."

    While refusing to grant pre-arrest bail to accused persons who allegedly sold the property of an NRI by impersonating the owner, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "This case is yet another example of a disturbing trend that is steadily gaining ground, wherein unscrupulous individuals take advantage of Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), particularly those who are unable to visit India frequently or manage their properties here. Time and again, such vulnerable property owners are defrauded through forged documents, misuse of Powers of Attorney often resulting in sale of their properties at grossly undervalued rates."

    The Court further said that, "the scale of this deceit is symptomatic of systemic abuse", where absence is weaponized and legal safeguards are routinely undermined.

    These offences are rooted in a breach of trust and stand on a different pedestal than conventional criminal offences in terms of criminal jurisprudence as they not only impact the personal and financial security of the victims but also have cascading effects on public trust in the real estate ecosystem, and ultimately, the economic stability of the State, it added.

    The pre-arrest bail was filed by Bagel Singh and Raghuvir Singh who were accused under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of BNS, 2023, added Section 81 read with Section 34(3) and 82 of Registration Act.

    After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that property owned by an NRI in Ludhiana, comprising land worth several crores of rupees, had been sold through impersonation for only Rs. 30.20 lakhs, out of which cheques amounting to Rs. 30 lakhs were never presented for encashment.

    Justice Brar higlighted that, "It is strange that Sub-Registrar at the time of execution of sale deed allowed the presentation of cheques instead of demand drafts. The appointment on behalf of the purchaser for registration of the sale deed was taken by Sham Sunder, Advocate, whereas, he did not appear and identified the parties and instead one Gurcharan Singh Marwaha,co-accused, appeared and identified the parties as marginal witness and the petitioner-Bagel Singh has identified the impersonator as the seller and owner of the property in question. "

    The Court noted that the role of the co-accused-Gurcharan Singh is similar in nature who has signed as marginal witness and further, the CCTV footage of the camera installed in the office of Sub-Registrar, Ludhiana, was obtained during investigation and co-accused-Gurcharan Singh along with other accused persons was found present at the time of execution of registration of sale deed and at the same time, the print of the sale deed was taken out.

    It opined that the facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicates that the petitioners and other co-accused are part of a larger conspiracy of usurping the properties of Non-Resident Indians (NRIs).

    The Court took note of the State counsel's submission that, "the real owner was not even aware of the fraud when the sale deed was executed in favour of the co-accused by way of impersonation. Apart from it, no sale consideration has exchanged hands and custodial interrogation of the petitioners is imperative to establish the role of other co-accused including the revenue officials."

    Considering that the petitioners and the criminal antecedental behaviour of petitioner-Bagel Singh, the Court found no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

    Mr. Karan Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Raghav Puggal, Advocate and Mr. Karan Puggal, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M-23740-2025

    Mr. Atul Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M-19545-2025

    Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

    Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Advocate and Mr. Manan Khetarpal, Advocate for the complainant 

    Title: Bagel Singh v. State of Punjab

    Click here to read/download the order  


    Next Story
    OSZAR »