Crl.Misc No M- 24536 of 2009 Shatrughan Sen Rathore Vs. State of U.T. And another. PRESENT: Mr.Narinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Chahal, Advocate for U.T.Chandigarh. Mr. G.S.Sawhney, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *** The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 21 dated 17.1.2009 under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station Sector 34, Chandigarh, on the basis of compromise Annexed as Annexure P-1 with the petition. While issuing notice of motion on 3.9.2009, the following order was passed: “ Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter has been compromised with complainant- respondent No.2 vide compromise deed (Annexure P-1). Notice of motion for 17.11.2009. In the meanwhile, petitioner if arrested shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall join investigation as and when required by the police and shall comply with the conditions specified in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. In compliance of the order passed on 3.9.2009, the petitioner has joined the investigation. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that as per terms and conditions of the compromise deed, 8 cheques have been given to the complainant, the details of which are mentioned in the compromise deed Annexure P-1 with the petition. Out of 8 cheques, 4 have been encashed. Crl.Misc No M- 24536 of 2009 [2] Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submits that since all the cheques have not been encashed by the complainant, the petition be kept pending till all the cheques are encashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the cheques have been handed over to the complainant and he is not backing out from his undertaking as mentioned in the compromise deed Annexure P-1. The matter has been compromised and out of 8 cheques, 4 cheques have already been encahsed and the petitioner undertakes to comply with the terms and conditions of the compromise effected between the parties and in future all the remaining cheques will be encahsed. If any cheque is not encahsed, respondent No.2 will be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be genuine. Moreover, there is no ground to decline the interim bail to the petitioner. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation and has also undertaken to comply with the terms and conditions of the compromise deed Annexure P-1, the interim order dated 3.9.2009 passed by this Court is made absolute. However, it is for respondent No.2 to move an application for cancellation of bail in case any of the terms and conditions of the compromise deed is violated by the petitioner. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) February 15, 2010 JUDGE raghav