CRM No. M 28075 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 28075 of 2010 Date of decision: 26.11.2010 Balwinder Singh and another ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr.Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. P S Bajwa, DAG, Punjab for the respondent Mr. Prashan Bansal, Advocate for the complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 204 dated 02.09.2010 under Section 420 IPC, registered at PS Rajpura City, District Patiala, Punjab. Learned counsel for the complainant while opposing the bail application contended that the petitioners had sold the disputed plot to him and possession thereof was also handed over to him. However, when he tried to raise construction over it, he was stopped by one Baldev Singh on CRM No. M 28075 of 2010 2 the ground that the said plot already stood sold to him. Thus, the petitioners had cheated him as the plot was already sold by them to said Baldev Singh. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. There is no dispute qua the ownership of the plot. Gurpreet Singh and Baldev Singh along with other are co-sharers. The complainant has himself admitted in the civil suit filed by him that the vacant possession of the plot was handed over to him at the time of execution of the sale deed by petitioner No. 2 - Gurmeet Singh. Further, the plot was not sold by Gurmeet Singh to Baldev Singh. In fact, the said Baldev Singh was a co- sharer with Gurmeet Singh. Thus, the dispute, if at all, is only qua possession of the specific khasra numbers. Petitioner No. 2 is stated to have sold the plot falling in his share. Moreover, the complainant has also filed a civil suit for possession. Whereas, petitioner No. 1 with whom the complainant had meanwhile entered into agreement to sell the plot, has also filed a civil suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell against the present complainant. Thus, the entire dispute is of civil nature. Today, learned State counsel, on instructions from HC- Balwinder Singh, states that the petitioners have since joined the investigation. In view of the above, the order dated 23.09.2010 passed by this Court is made absolute. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge November 26, 2010 mohan