Crl. Misc. No.M-12414 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-12414 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.09.2010 Hira Lal .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab. .. Respondent Present:- Mr.Suveer Sheokand, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S.Pannu, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. Mr.Yogesh Goel, Advocate, for the complainant. * * * * 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? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (Oral) While issuing notice of motion and granting interim order on 30.04.2010, the contention of the petitioner was noted that the petitioner was ready and willing to execute the agreement between him and the complainant. On 20.07.2010, more time was prayed for to seek instructions and comply with the statement made on 30.04.2010 that the petitioner was ready and willing to execute the agreement between him and the complainant. Today, learned counsel for the complainant has brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner is not in a position to execute the agreement as he is not the owner of the property in dispute. Crl. Misc. No.M-12414 of 2010 ::2:: Accordingly, the respondent has been cheated by the petitioner by entering into an agreement of the property which does not belong to him. Learned counsel for the respondent further states that the intent of the petitioner to cheat is further evident from the fact that cheques amounting to Rs.10 lacs were given by petitioner towards earnest money as he could not register the sale deed. However, the said cheques were also dishonoured. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to dispute the said factual position. The concession of bail therefore cannot be extended to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. September 14, 2010 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) sukhpreet JUDGE