CRM-M No. 18710 of 2011 **** Vir Singh v. State of Haryana and another Present: Mr. KDS Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Man Mohan Sikka, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Silak Ram Hood, Advocate for the complainant. **** This is a petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.134 dated 17.4.2010, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sohna, District Gurgaon. On 22.07.2011 the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has at the very outset argued that the allegations that the petitioner has signed as a witness or that he signed an undertaking or that he signed a receipt for ` 2,20,000/-, are incorrect. The petitioner is ready to give a handwriting sample to the investigating officer. If a forensic examination of handwriting shows that the petitioner had signed the said documents, he would have no objection in paying the present day market value of the property to the complainant. In my opinion this cannot be termed as irrelevant or unfair. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to take this undertaking of the petitioner at its face value and direct him to appear before the investigating officer on 29.07.2011 to give his sample handwriting. Let the disputed signatures be then got examined and a report be presented before the next date of hearing. On the appearance of the petitioner before the investigating officer, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail to the satisfaction of the investigating officer subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Adjourned to 29.09.2011. Interim order to continue.” Thereafter on 29.09.2011 the learned DAG had confirmed the fact that the handwriting of the petitioner had been positively identified by the FSL report. CRM-M No. 18710 of 2011 -2- In this view of the matter, in terms of the order dated 22.07.2011 the petitioner prayed for one month time to compensate the complainant. Since then the time is being sought repeatedly. Even today no payment has been made to the complainant. It is thus clear that apart from the merits the petitioner is guilty of overreaching this Court. He has obtained the interim order by making a false undertaking. Resultantly on this ground alone this petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the same is dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE December 21, 2011 sunita