Crl. Misc. No.M-32927 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-32927 of 2009 Date of Decision: May 7, 2010 Asshish Goel …..Petitioner Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Hemant Bassi, Advocate for U.T. Mr.Rajiv Anand, Advocate for the complainant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s Castel concrete Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. He apprehends arrest in a case registered at the instance of Brig. D.S. Grewal and others alleging that they were persuaded to invest in the project named “Balaji Enclave” in Brotiwala. It was offered Crl. Misc. No.M-32927 of 2009 [2] that a flat would be given for around Rs.24,53,100/- and that a monthly sum of Rs.25,000/- per months was payable and it was guaranteed that the property would be bought back from the complainant after a period of five years at a price of Rs.31,85,000/-. It was ensured that the investment would be safe. It was ensured that the entire project would be ready for occupation in 18 months. Neither any flat was given to the complainant nor any construction was raised on the spot. Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Goel contended that the petitioner does not have any malafide intention and that no fraud has been committed. On the other hand, State counsel has argued that the petitioners has pocketed huge amount and the money received from the complainant has been misappropriated. Counsel for the petitioner argued that liability, if any, could be said to be civil liability and that no criminal offence is made out. Counsel for the petitioner had stated before the Court that petitioner be given some time to settle the matter amicably vide order dated December 4, 2009. Thereafter interim protection was granted to the petitioner to amicably settle the matter. The petitioner has neither been able to settle the matter nor return money. I have considered the contention of counsel for the petitioner that it is a case of civil liability. The said contention, if seen in context to Section 415 read with illustration (f), it is a case where the petitioner has Crl. Misc. No.M-32927 of 2009 [3] deceived the complainant and others into a belief that he means to re-pay the money that had been paid by them. The complainants have been dishonestly induced to part with money for which the petitioner did not have any intention to repay. There was a clear agreement that the flats made by the petitioner’s Company would be re-purchased by them at higher price. No ground is made out for grant of pre-arrest bail. Dismissed. Interim order is vacated. May 7, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE