IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-33550 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 11, 2010 Parminder Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, assisted by Mr. Shakun Chaudhary, Advocate, for the complainant. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.200 dated 24.9.2009 under Sections 420, 506 IPC, Police Station, Kurukshetra. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the property and seller also. Civil rights of complainant, Smt. Babli, have already been settled by way of paying Rs.2,80,000/- to Crl. Misc. No. M-33550 of 2009 [2] her whereafter the complainant has no grievance as against the petitioner. Rather, the petitioner and Babli have entered into a compromise vide written deed dated 9.12.2009. Babli has given an undertaking that she would not proceed with the case and would not bring any evidence as against the petitioner in prosecution of the FIR case. Mr. Shakun Chaudhary, Advocate, who is appearing for the complainant, endorses the fact that the complainant has entered into a compromise on 9.12.2009 vide a written deed, placed on record as Annexure P-2 with Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-35629 of 2009 titled `Parminder Singh vs. State of Haryana & another’. Learned counsel for the complainant states that having received the amount from the petitioner, the complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioner. Considering the stand of the complainant, the petition is allowed. Order dated 4.12.2009 is hereby made absolute and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:- Crl. Misc. No. M-33550 of 2009 [3] “(i) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required; (ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.” This order shall enure till 15 days after the filing of final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. within which period, the petitioner shall be required to seek regular bail. It is directed that the Investigating Officer shall take into account the factum of compromise as noticed above and if the factum of compromise is found to be correct, the same shall be taken note of as required by law. (AJAI LAMBA) January 11, 2010 JUDGE avin