CRM.M 9610 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on August 06,2009. Prem Chand Singla -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KJMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Gaurav Mohunta,Advocate,for the petitioner Mr. K.D.Sachdeva,Addl.A.G.Punjab. Mr.Anuj Sharma,Advocate, for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: (Oral) The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in a case registered vide FIR No.10 dated 23.1.2009 under Section 420/120-B IPC at Police Station, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar,Mohali. The FIR has been registered on the statement of Raj Kumar son of Dhodhe Singh on the allegations that Raj Kumar son of Kashmira and Jain Kumar (non-applicants) induced the complainant and others that they have been sent by the petitioner to sell two rooms house to the employees of Chandigarh at Himmatgarh Dhakoli @ Rs.4,42,000/-. Raj Kumar son of Kashmira (non-applicant) assured the complainant that the petitioner would arrange loan from Punjab Central Cooperative Bank, Zirakpur. On 13.1.2004, the petitioner met the complainant and told him CRM.M 9610 of 2009 (O&M) 2 that he will sell the house for Rs. 3,50,000/- but would show the same to have been sold for Rs.4,50,000/-. On 15.1.2004, the complainant was taken by the petitioner to the office of Sub Registrar and house No. 78 was got registered in his name. The sale deed showed the petitioner as General Power of Attorney of one Akhattar Singh but since the date of sale of the house, possession has not been delivered and in this manner, the petitioner has cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/-. It is pertinent to mention here that before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, SAS, Nagar, Mohali, which was dismissed on 12.2.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been granted interim bail by this Court and has also joined the investigation. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court that the petitioner would give alternative plot to the complainant i.e. Plot No.68 instead of plot No.78. In this regard, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioner had to give two rooms constructed plot and not a vacant plot to which the learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed before this Court. He, however, submits that the amount which is to be paid to the bank shall be the responsibility of the complainant. Since the petitioner has agreed to hand over possession of two rooms constructed plot No.68 instead of plot No.78 to the complainant . Therefore, the major grievance of the complainant seems to have been redressed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, without CRM.M 9610 of 2009 (O&M) 3 expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, order dated 02.4.2009, vide which the petitioner has been granted interim bail, is hereby made absolute. He shall keep on joining the investigation as and when required. He shall further abide by the provisions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. This petition stands disposed of. Aug 06,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge