-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.M-11491 of 2009 Date of Decision: 9.7.2009 Vidya Rani ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.R.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG Punjab. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.(Oral) Counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the agreement to sell dated 11.9.2007 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner is only a vendor for which he has given General Power of Attorney to Gurmail Singh. Gurmail Singh on the strength of power of attorney had already executed two sale deeds dated 6.6.2008 and 13.8.2008. Insofar as the third agreement is concerned in which complainant has alleged that Rs.10 lacs was taken at the time of extension of time for the purpose of sale deed that amount has not been returned whereas counsel for the petitioner submits that in the original writing dated 7.1.2009 (Annexure P-2), the amount of Rs.10 lacs is not mentioned and it has been incorporated by the complainant himself in the agreement. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is 66 years old lady who in terms of the order passed by this Court dated 28.4.2009, has already joined investigation. Counsel for the State admits this fact on the information received from ASI Sukhwinder Singh, however, -2- he submits that original agreement to sell has not been produced by the petitioner so far. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner submits that original agreement to sell is with the vendees and not with the vendor. Be that as it may, keeping in view the facts of the case, order dated 28.4.2009 is made absolute. The petitioner shall keep on joining investigation as and when called for. She shall also abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition is disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 9.7.2009 JUDGE Meenu