IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M- 34316 of 2008 Date of decision: 30.3.2009 Gurmel Singh and anr …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …Respondent Present: Mr MK Sood, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr Sudhir Nehra, Addl AG Punjab. S.S.SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them alleging commission of offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegations in the FIR are that Asha Rani (petitioner-2) executed an agreement to sell her house to Lakhwinder Singh – complainant on 14.12.2005 for a consideration of Rs 6.00 lakhs and she received a sum of Rs 3.00 lakhs as earnest money. The date fixed for execution of the sale deed was 5.7.2006. In fact, Asha Rani had mortgaged the aforesaid house with the Punjab and Sind Bank and had obtained a loan. Asha Rai had informed the complainant that they were unable to give the loan and, therefore, the date for execution of the sale be extended. The date was accordingly extended to 6.12.2007. The complainant went to the Tehsil Cr Misc M-34316 of 2008 2 office for registration of the sale deed and marked his presence. He also gave legal notice to Asha Rani – the seller, but again Asha Rani and her husband requested that they were short of money to return the bank loan and they demanded Rs 1.00 lakh from the complainant. It was stated that after paying the amount to the Bank, the sale deed would be executed. On 6.12.2007 the date for execution of the sale deed was extended to 15.1.2008. However, Asha Rani (petitioner-2) and Gurmail Singh (petitioner-1) who is the husband of Asha Rani did not execute the sale deed and in this manner it was alleged that the complainant had been cheated. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the balance amount of Rs 2.15 lakhs has been paid to the Punjab and Sind Bank and the bank loan has been cleared. The case set up by the petitioners is that they had not entered into any agreement to sell the house with the complainant – Lakhwinder Singh and that their signatures were taken on blank papers. In any case, the loan amount has been returned to the Bank; however, there is no agreement. It is also submitted that the petitioners have joined the investigation. Learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Baljinder Kumar, PS Tripri, Patiala has submitted that the petitioners have joined the investigation and that their further custody is not required for the purposes of investigation. The dispute appears to be of a civil nature. In the circumstances, the interim bail granted to the petitioners on 14.1.2009 is made absolute. This petition stands disposed of accordingly. 30.3.2009 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge