Criminal Misc.-M No. 25442 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 25442 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.11.2011 Meenu Arora and another .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. BBS Teji, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. M. K. Dogra, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. While issuing notice of motion on 24.8.2011, following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners were noticed: “Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no. 1 along with the complainant namely Sukhdev Singh had agreed to purchase a plot measuring 530 square yards for a total consideration of ` 46,25,000/-, out of which ` 10,00,000/- was paid as earnest money. As the sale- deed was not executed by the vendor, civil suit was filed on 2.2.2006 for permanent injunction. Later on, the same was amended and converted into a suit for specific performance. Sukhdev Singh forged power of attorney of petitioner no. 1 dated 4.2.2010 and on the basis thereof, the suit filed by both of them was withdrawn by him as settled. The property in question was sold by the original owner to Parkash Singh son of Harbans Singh on 21.9.2010. Petitioner No. 1 filed a suit challenging the Criminal Misc.-M No. 25442 of 2011 [2] withdrawal of suit by Sukhdev Singh on a forged power of attorney of petitioner no. 1, in which Parkash Singh son of Harbans Singh, who had sold the property subsequently has also been impleaded as one of the defendants. The Civil Court vide order dated 7.4.2011 had restrained Parkash Singh from alienating/ mortgaging and making any construction on the suit property. The present complaint has been filed by Sukhdev Singh against the petitioners stating that he had been defrauded on 4.2.2010 by giving a power of attorney regarding 50% share of petitioner no. 1 whereas prior to that on 21.4.2008, petitioner no. 1 had agreed to sell 40% share to one Ravinder Singh son of Balbir Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the aforesaid agreement to sell in favour of Ravinder Singh was cancelled on 21.2.2009 and as such the allegation in the complaint are totally unfounded.” Petitioner no. 2 has been involved in the case as he was witness to the agreement to sell executed by petitioner no. 1 in favour of Ravinder Singh on 21.4.2008.” Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have joined investigation. Learned counsel for the State submitted that though the petitioners had joined investigation but the original agreement to sell dated 21.4.2008 was not handed over to the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he has aforesaid agreement in original with him, which has been handed over to the Investigating Officer, who is present in court in person, along with revocation deed of the aforesaid agreement executed on 21.2.2009 and also the affidavit of Ravinder Singh, attested on 31.10.2011, stating that after revocation of the agreement to sell, he had received the earnest money back. In view of the above, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI-Kanwarjit Rai, submitted that custodial Criminal Misc.-M No. 25442 of 2011 [3] interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Accordingly, the interim bail granted to the petitioners on 24.8.2011 is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 21.11.2011 mk