IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-9715 of 2008 Date of decision:- 22.5.2008 Sohan Lal Amrohi ...Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Anandeshwar Gautam , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL J. On 17.4.2008 considering the following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court while issuing notice of motion granted stay of arrest to the petitioner: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant had agreed to purchase the house of the petitioner for a total consideration of Rs. 8.0 lacs. In addition to that, the complainant was to clear the loan raised by the petitioner against the property from the Corporation Bank, Amritsar. A copy of the undertaking of the complainant to pay the amount of loan vide two cheques issued in favour of the Corporation Bank, Amritsar, is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1 and the copies of the cheques issued by the complainant is at Annexure P-2. As the cheques were post dated, on presentation, the payment thereof was stopped by the complainant. However, before that, he got the sale deed registered in his favour. The allegation in the FIR that the Criminal Misc. No. M-9715 of 2008 -2- petitioner has sold the house to the complainant free from all encumbrances, is patently false. After the non clearance of the cheques issued by the complainant to the Banker of the petitioner, from where the petitioner had raised a loan against the property, the petitioner had lodged a complaint against the complainant and on the basis of that complaint, an FIR No. 208 dated 15.9.2005 was registered against the complainant. In the present FIR against the petitioner, the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant by misusing his position, as the complainant is working in the Crime Branch of the Punjab Police. “ Learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Nirvail Singh submits that the petitioner has already joined investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required. Without recording any finding on the merits of the controversy, the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 17.4.2008 is made absolute. The petition is disposed of. May 22, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) ritu-II JUDGE