Criminal Misc.-M No. 22136 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 22136 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 06.09.2011 Sukhdev Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. On 25.07.2011, while issuing of notice of motion, following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were recorded:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant in the present case, who is NRI, entered into an agreement to sell for purchase of land owned by the petitioner as well as his two sons. The agreement was executed on 9.4.2009 for a total consideration of ` 40,50,000/-. ` 15,00,000/- was paid as earnest money. The last date for registration of sale deed was 18.09.2009. Before the last date of registration of sale deed, the complainant issued a legal notice to the petitioner on 21.04.2009 seeking delivery of actual physical possession of the land in dispute. The complainant filed a civil suit on 12.06.2009 seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from changing the nature of the land by raising any kind of construction thereon. The petitioner filed an application in the aforesaid civil suit seeking a direction to the complainant, the plaintiff in the civil suit to Criminal Misc.-M No. 22136 of 2011 2 produce the original agreement to sell signed between the parties as they apprehended that certain tampering has been done therein. The agreement in original was not produced by the complainant despite number of opportunities and ultimately the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.9.2010. While the complainant was pursuing his civil remedy, on the other hand on 17.04.2009 he filed a complaint to the police leveling wild allegations, which were not there either in the notice or the civil suit filed by him and on the basis thereof, the FIR was registered against the petitioner on 30.06.2011. The petitioner has appeared before the Sub- Registrar for registration of sale deed on the date fixed in the agreement to sell, namely, 18.9.2009 but the complainant did not appear. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is 70 years old widow. Her two sons, who are named in the FIR were arrested and have already been released on regular bail.” Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Karnail Singh, submitted that the petitioner has already joined investigation and her custo- dial interrogation is not required. Considering the aforesaid fact, interim bail granted to the peti- tioner on 25.07.2011, is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 06.09.2011 sharmila