IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.31075 OF 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 14, 2011 Vivek Khurana ...Petitioner Versus Rajinder Parsad & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.R.C.Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Petitioner claims to have entered into an agreement to purchase land measuring 4 kanals bearing Khasra No.83/16/1, situated in Patti Makdum Zadgan outside the limit of Municipal Council, Panipat from its owner Smt.Usha Jain. The petitioner has executed an agreement in this regard. The balance payment, as per the agreement, was to be paid on the date of executing the sale deed, which was fixed as 30.11.2007. As per the petitioner, he reached the office of Sub Registrar, but respondent No.1 did not reach there and so the registration of the sale could not be done. On the other hand, respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Sections 120-B/420/467 and 468 IPC against the petitioner with the allegations that land was not owned by the petitioner. On the basis of this complaint, the petitioner has been summoned for committing offence under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has sought CRM-M No.31075 OF 2011 (O&M) : 2 : concession of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., which has been granted to him. The grievance of the petitioner is that a false case has been fastened on him, whereas the respondent-complainant is not in a position to pay the entire liability and that is why he has filed this complaint. The falsity of the allegations ultimately will have to be seen on the basis of evidence, which would be led at the trial. Prima- facie, on the basis of material and the complaint, the petitioner has been summoned. It is more appropriate for the petitioner to raise all the defences that are available to him before the trial Court. I am not inclined to invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to scuttle the trial. Dismissed. October 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE