CRM-M-35178 of 2010 (O&M) - 1 - CRM-M-36923 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-35178 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:25.07.2011 Surinder Kumar and another . . .Petitioners Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent ***** CRM-M-36923 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:25.07.2011 Tarsem Lal . . .Petitioner Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr.A.S. Rai, DAG, Punjab. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two petitions namely CRM-M-35178 of 2010 titled as Surinder Kumar and another Vs. State of Punjab and CRM-M- 36923 of 2010 titled as Tarsem Lal Vs. State of Punjab as both the cases are arising out of the same FIR No.245 dated 6.11.2010 registered under Sections 380, 420, 467, 471 & 120-B IPC at Police Station Rajpura City, District Patiala. CRM-M-35178 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - CRM-M-36923 of 2010 (O&M) In both the cases, petitioners have prayed for anticipatory bail. In the first case namely, CRM-M-35178 of 2010 vide order dated 01.12.2010, arrest of the petitioners were stayed and they were allowed to join the investigation. Thereafter, the interim order continued and in the meantime, the other petition namely CRM-M-36923 of 2010 was filed by Tarsem Lal, in which only notice of motion was issued on 16.12.2010 and it was ordered to be heard with CRM-M- 36367 of 2010. In this case arrest of the petitioner was not stayed. In brief, the aforesaid FIR was registered by Jaswinder Singh in which he has alleged that he entered into an agreement to sell his house on 17.11.2008 for a sum of `10,50,000/- and had received `2,50,000/- as earnest money. Sale deed was to be executed on 9.9.2009 on payment of the remaining amount of `8 lacs. He alleged that though the possession was taken by the prospective vendee but he did not pay an amount of `8 lacs as agreed. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has informed the Court that dispute between the parties has been settled as the sale deed of the house has been executed on 16.6.2011, meaning thereby remaining amount of `8 lacs has been received by the complainant and the written compromise has also been executed on the same day. Photocopies of both the sale deed and written compromise dated 16.6.2011 are placed on record as Annexure ‘A’ and Annexure ‘B’ respectively. In view of the fact that the matter has been resolved between the parties outside the Court and the sale deed has been executed between the parties, the order dated 1.12.2010 passed in CRM-M-35178 of 2010 is hereby made absolute subject to the conditions already contained therein and so far as other petition namely CRM-36923 of 2010 is concerned, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. He shall also abide by the provisions as envisaged under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Petitions are disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JULY 25, 2011 JUDGE Vivek CRM-M-35178 of 2010 (O&M) - 3 - CRM-M-36923 of 2010 (O&M)