CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.25816 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 08, 2009 Janak Raj Gupta .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Harvinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner prays for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. This case arises on account of a dispute between brothers. Petitioner is younger brother of the complainant and they were partners in a business firm M/s H.R.Gupta Industries. This partnership concern suffered huge losses. On a suit filed by State Bank of India, some recovery was ordered. The petitioner claims to have paid an amount of Rs.65.00 lacs to pay off the debts of M/s CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.25816 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 2 }: H.R.Gupta Industries as well as Thakur Steels and Tubes Ltd., another concern, where the petitioner and his wife are Directors. There was statedly some understanding between both the brothers. It is stated that on payment of the bank dues, the entire property and the proceeds were to be adjusted after adjusting the borrowing and paying of the dues of the Bank etc. In April, 2004, a plot standing in the name of firm was sold by the petitioner, which was in the knowledge of the complainant. Nothing happened till July, 2009 though the brothers were staying together. Suddenly, the present FIR was lodged by the complainant with the allegations that petitioner was left free for looking after the property of the firm. The complainant also gave general power of attorney for the land at Bahadurgarh. He has now a grievance that the land was sold for much more value, but is shown to have been sold only for very less amount, which was also got deposited in the accounts of the petitioner. The State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant Mr.Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate also opposed the prayer of the petitioner for pre-arrest bail with all vehemence at their command. Submission is that the brother has cheated another brother and there is a need for custodial interrogation to find out as to what was the real price at which this property was sold and also to unearth the cheating and embezzlement done by the petitioner. The dispute being between the real brothers, the court did make an effort to settle the issue by seeing if the matter could be amicably settled. The petition was accordingly sent to Mediation Centre to see in case the dispute or differences could be resolved. CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.25816 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 3 }: As an interim measure, the arrest of the petitioner was stayed subject to his joining the investigations. The matter still could not be resolved despite efforts by the Mediation Cell. The case accordingly has been sent back. From the rival contentions, it can be seen that prima facie it is a dispute which is civil in nature. Once the complainant had given power of attorney to his brother, on the basis of which the property was sold, he cannot now be heard to complain that he has been cheated. It was for him to decide, at that stage, whether to put faith in his brother or not. Investigation would show if the petitioner has done any cheating. The question here is whether there is any need for custodial interrogation of the petitioner just to find out the actual sale proceeds of the property. Since the petitioner has already joined investigation and all documents can easily be seen and perused and got produced, it will not, in my view, be a fit case where there is a need of any custodial interrogation. As per the State counsel, the petitioner has already joined investigation. If need be, he can be summoned to join investigation at any time in future. The order dated 9.10.2009 staying arrest of the petitioner is made absolute. The petitioner, however, would remain bound to join investigation as and when summoned. This order will enure till the filing of challan and thereafter the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the trial Court for regular bail, but this order would continue till disposal of regular bail application, if filed. Petition is allowed. December 08 ,2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE