Criminal Misc.-M No. 20757 of 2011 (1) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 20757 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision : 23.11.2011 Kuldeep Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B. B. S. Teji, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Ms. Daljit Kaur, Advocate, for the complainant. RAJESH BINDAL, J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is accused in FIR No. 218 dated 27.12.2010 registered under Sections 420, 494 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana. While issuing notice of motion on 13.7.2011, the following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR registered against the petitioner on the allegations that the petitioner though was earlier married but lived with the complainant on the pretext that he will marry her and established sexual relations, to which he latter on backed out. In fact, earlier complaint to that effect was made to the police and the matter in dispute was compromised on 6.4.2010. Again with the same set of facts fresh complaint was filed to the police, on the basis of which the FIR in question was registered.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already joined investigation. Criminal Misc.-M No. 20757 of 2011 (2) Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Balwinder Singh, while not disputing that the petitioner has joined the investigation submitted that his custodial interrogation is not required. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in the present case the complainant has been cheated. The complainant had been living with the petitioner on the promise that he will marry her and both of them will go to Canada. The fact that the petitioner was already married and having a family in Canada, was not disclosed. The contention that a sum of ` 1,50,000/- was paid in cash besides the house hold articles lying where both of them were living is totally wrong as there is no proof for the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the statement of the complainant recorded in the police station on 13.7.2010 admitting therein that the petitioner had left all the house hold articles in the rented accommodation where the parties lived together. The matter in dispute was compromised between them and they started living separately and the petitioner gave a sum of ` 1,50,000/- in cash to the complainant. This fact is even noticed in the enquiry conducted by the police in terms of report dated 13.8.2010. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the earlier settlement arrived at between the parties, in my opinion, the petitioner is not required to be taken into custody for interrogation. Accordingly, the interim bail granted to the petitioner on 13.7.2011 is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. 23.11.2011 ( Rajesh Bindal ) vs Judge