IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-28800 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.10.2009 Neena Sharma .. Petitioner v. State (U.T., Chandigarh) and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasmandeep, Advocate for Union Territory, Chandigarh. Mr. Gurmit Singh, Advocate for the complainant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the registration of the FIR, the petitioner has compromised the matter with the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant admitted the factum of compromise of the dispute with the petitioner, where she had allegedly taken certain money as commission for getting the loan of the complainant sanctioned. It is submitted that the amount has been returned back as the loan could not be sanctioned. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Accordingly, it is directed that in case the petitioner is sought to be arrested, she shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. She shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for investigation. She shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition is disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 29.10.2009 mk