Cr.Misc. NO M 32097 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cr.Misc. NO M 32097 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION 3.3.2009 Kirpal Singh ......PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab ......RESPONDENTS PRESENT: Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate Mr. RS Rawat, AAG, Pb M.M.S.BEDI,J. On the last date of hearing the case was adjourned on the assurance of the petitioner that he was ready to return Rs.3.00 lacs (the admitted amount) received by him on behalf of his sister-in-law from the complainant and was also, in the alternative, ready to transfer some other land in favour of the complainant. I have gone through the nature of the allegations against the petitioner levelled by the complainant and gone through the police record. The petitioner, in the capacity as a power of attorney of his wife and sister- in-law had executed an agreement of sale and received a sum of Rs.3.00 lacs on 28.5.2005, another sum of Rs.1.00 lac on 10.7.2005, Rs.50,000/- on 16.2.2006, Rs.90,000/- on 16.9.2006 by way of a cheque and a sum of Rs.1.00 lac on 30.4.2006 but fraudulently the same land has been sold to the third person by the sister-in-law and the wife of the petitioner. The necessary ingredients of cheating are patently made out as the complainant had been persuaded to part with money on the false promise Cr.Misc. NO M 32097 of 2008 2 of the petitioner. Despite his undertaking, the petitioner has not come forward to return the amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the matter is of civil nature and that no suit for recovery has been filed by the complainant till date implying thereby that the petitioner is not liable for paying anything to the complainant. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at length for one hour, I am of the opinion that there is sufficient material against the petitioner on the police file indicating his mala fide and his intention to cheat the complainant. No extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. Nothing said in the order will prejudice the right of the petitioner in any other proceedings. This order will not, in any manner, prevent the petitioner to enter into any compromise with the complainant by compensating him. March 3 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE