Crl. Misc. No. M- 31487 of 2011(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of Decision: December 12, 2011 Crl. Misc. No. M- 31487 of 2011(O&M) Ravi Dhawan ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Crl. Misc. No. M- 31819 of 2011(O&M) Purshotam Lal and another ---Petitioners versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr. B.S.Sra, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab *** Gurdev Singh, J. The above noted petitions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed by Ravi Dhawan, Purshotam Lal and Rama Dhawan, petitioners, for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 269 dated 9.8.2011 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 120-B Crl. Misc. No. M- 31487 of 2011(O&M) -2- IPC in Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar City. The following facts are not disputed as narrated in the FIR:- “The dispute is regarding the shop situated in the revenue limits of village Badali Guru, which was originally owned by Rama Dhawan wife of Parshoam Lal Dhawan. She executed Power of Attorney in favour of Krishan Kumar, who on the basis thereof, sold that shop in favour of his brother, Vinod Kumar, vide sale deed dated 16.9.1997. Subsequently, Rama Dhawan got cancelled that Power of Attorney and executed sale deed dated 27.8.2004 in favour of her son Ravi Dhawan. A complaint was made by Vinod Kumar, which was enquired by the Inspector Economic Offences Wing and during that enquiry, a compromise was produced by the parties and vide that compromise, Parshotam Dhawan agreed to vacate that shop within a month.” The disputed facts are about the nature of possession of Parshotam Lal, which according to the complainant was that of a tenant and according to him, Parshotam Lal was inducted as a tenant in the shop by Vinod Kumar, whereas according to the other party, the possession of the shop always remained with Rama Rani. It has not been disputed at the time of arguments that the case is based upon the documents, which are already in possession of the Investigating Agency. Therefore, it cannot be said that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. In view of all these facts and that the dispute is mainly of civil Crl. Misc. No. M- 31487 of 2011(O&M) -3- nature, these petitions are accepted. In the event of arrest of the petitioners in the FIR, mentioned in the petition, they are ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer subject to the following conditions:- (i)They shall Join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. (ii)They shall not offer any threat, promise or inducement to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the same to the Investigating Officer/Court; and (iii)They shall not leave the limits of this country without prior permission of the Court. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE December 12, 2011 PARAMJIT