Criminal Misc. No. M-6068 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-6068 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.7.2009 Lal Chand .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vikas Behl, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 13 dated 16.1.2009, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Banga, District Nawanshahar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has only introduced Harbilass with Ajmer Singh as Harbilass wanted to go abroad. Ajmer Singh was in the business of facilitating the people going abroad. Otherwise, he had no role to play in the deal of Harbilass with Ajmer Singh. Harbilass had subsequently gone abroad. Harbilass had paid the amount to Ajmer Singh, as is evident from cheque (Annexure P1), which was issued by him in the name of Ajmer Singh. He further referred to the allegations made in the complaint to the police, where it was stated that Harbilas had paid Rs. 4,25,000/- to the petitioner, whereas in the alleged compromise, it was stated to be only Rs. 2,50,000/-, which shows apparent contradiction in the case set up by the complainant. He further submitted that in fact the dispute was settled between the parties and it was merely payment of money for which FIR could not be registered as criminal proceedings could not be launched for recovery of money. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that it is a clear cut case of cheating. The complainant had been cheated by the petitioner, who had taken the money from Ajmer Singh for sending him abroad. Later on, Harbilass had gone abroad. He had given the power of attorney to his sister to proceed with the case against the petitioner. Out of Rs. 2,50,000/- settled in the Criminal Misc. No. M-6068 of 2009 [2] compromise, only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been paid by the petitioner. It was submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is the admitted position that dispute between the parties was settled in terms of money and on account of non-payment of part money, FIR was got registered by the complainant, meaning thereby custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not be required. It is not disputed that he has already joined the investigation. Considering the aforesaid facts, it is directed that in case of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for investigation. He shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 15.7.2009 mk