IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M- 4073 of 2010 Date of decision: 18.3.2010 Anil Kumar ......Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.R.S.Sihota,Sr. Advocate, with Mr.Ashok K.Sharma, Advocate, Mr.S.S.Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr.Rahul Rathore, Advocate, for the complainant. **** ORDER The present petition under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed on behalf of Anil Kumar in case FIR No.24 dated 23.1.2010 under Sections 420/467/468/471/506/120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sector 55, Faridabad. Notice of motion was issued on 11.2.2010 and notice re: stay was also ordered. During the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the dispute is between son and father and on the basis of complaint made by the father, the present FIR was registered. The allegations against the present petitioner are that he got prepared a General Power of Attorney instead of Will as desired by his father and transferred Crl.Misc. No.M- 4073 of 2010 [2] the property in favour of his wife and his sister and thereafter sold away to other persons. Vide order dated 19.2.2010, the petitioner as well as complainant were called. Petitioner as well as complainant are present in Court. As per statement of the complainant-father, the petitioner has sold away his land on the basis of General Power of Attorney, got executed in his name fraudulently whereas he was asked to prepare a Will. His son has cheated him at the age of 85 years when he is suffering from old age ailments and other problems. Petitioner Anil Kumar, who is also present in Court, has stated that only 4 Kanals land is left which is in the name of his wife and he is ready to give maintenance to his father and it was not a case of cheating. With the efforts of the Advocates appearing for the parties, the petitioner has agreed to pay Rs.20,000/-, per month, to his father during his life time and the above-said amount would be deposited in the account of the complainant-father. The said amount would be withdrawn only by the complainant and not by any other family member. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the interim direction issued vide order dated 22.2.2010 with regard to arrest of the petitioner is made absolute and it is directed that the proceedings arising out of the said FIR would remain stayed. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not make payment of the aforesaid amount to the complainant regularly, the complainant would be at liberty to apply for cancellation of his bail and restoration of the proceedings arising out of the FIR on this Crl.Misc. No.M- 4073 of 2010 [3] ground alone. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE March 18, 2010. raghav