Cr.Misc. M 37868 of 2010 1 THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 37868 of 2010 Date of decision: 1.11.2011 Laljit Petitioner vs. State of Punjab Respondent Present: Mr. HS Grewal, Advocate Mr. PS Bajwa, DAG, Pb Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of complainant Ashok Jindal alleging that the petitioner had agreed to sell his land measuring 4 kanal to him on the basis of an agreement of sale. A sum of Rs.10.00 lacs had been paid by the complainant to the petitioner as final sale consideration. On account of good relations between the complainant and the petitioner, it had been decided that registration will be done in favour of the complainant but the petitioner on 29.2.2008 has sold the land measuring 3 kanal 17 marlas out of 4 kanal of land for a sum of Rs.11 lacs to Amrinder Singh son of Jagtar Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complainant had recei ved a sum of Rs.7 lacs on 12.7.2008 against a receipt. Thereafter, the petitioner had entered into an agreement of sale of 3 kanal 17 marlas of land with Amrinder Singh and the complainant had himself signed as a marginal witness on the said agreement but later on the complainant denied the signatures on the receipt of Rs. 7 lacs as well Cr.Misc. M 37868 of 2010 2 as on the agreement of sale, entered into by the complainant with Amrinder Singh. It has also been brought to the notice of the court that the complainant has filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioner, taking up the similar pleas as in the FIR. The petitioner has filed a written statement taking up all the pleas, which have been raised before this court in defence. The only controversy, which remains to be determined is whether a sum of Rs. 12 lacs stands repaid to the complainant by the petitioner before entering into the sale transaction. Counsel for the complainant has argued that as per the report of Forensic Science Laboratory the signatures of the complainant on the said agreement of sale have not been found to be that of the complainant. I have heard counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the report of the F.S.L., which appears to be uncertain on the face of it. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation. As per the information supplied by ASI Paramjit Singh to the State counsel, at one stage, during the course of inquiry, the petitioner was found to be not involved in the offence of cheating. Without expression of any opinion on merits, it is sufficient to observe that the dispute, at this stage, is also pending before the civil court and it is partly a civil dispute regarding the money transaction. Both the petitioner and the complainant appear to be property dealers. It does not appear to be a case of custodial interrogation as the case of the prosecution rests upon the documents, which have already been taken into possession by the investigating agency. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, he will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition that the petitioner will join the Cr.Misc. M 37868 of 2010 3 investigation as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation. Nothing mentioned in this order will prejudice the right of the parties in any civil litigation or any other inquiry. November 1 ,2011 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE