CRM-M- No. 15231 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M- No. 15231 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : June 1, 2011 Hans Raj ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana Mr. K.Y. Singh, Advocate, for the complainant. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.394 dated 4.12.2010, under Sections 406,420,120-B and 506 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula. This Court vide order dated 18.5.2011 has directed to release the petitioner on bail. CRM-M- No. 15231 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has executed agreement to sell in favour of the complainant and petitioner is not denying the factum of the agreement. He has further stated that even complainant is not denying that petitioner is owner of the property in question. He has further stated that civil dispute has been given the colour of the criminal offence, which is not permissible under the law. Mr. K.Y. Singh, learned counsel for the complainant states that earlier Karam Chand was owner of the property in dispute and has sold the property in dispute to the petitioner through his power of attorney Davinder Kumar. He has further stated that Kewal Krishan a third person has filed suit for specific performance against Karam Chand and the subsequent purchaser petitioner stating that Kewal Krishan had prior agreement to sell in his favour. Learned counsel for the complainant further states that while entering into the agreement to sell with the complainant petitioner did not disclose to the complainant that a civil suit for specific performance of contract pertaining to the land in question is pending before the competent court, therefore, complainant felt cheated. Fact remains as on day petitioner is the owner of the property. Fact remains that petitioner has admittedly executed an agreement to sell in favour of the complainant. If complainant is not willing to get the sale deed executed because of pendency of the civil suit filed by the third party he could have asked for refund of the earnest money alongwith interest and damages as per terms and conditions of the agreement to sell. However, in the opinion of this Court civil dispute was given colour of criminal offence which is not permissible under the law. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions from ASI Zile Singh, who is present personally in Court, has CRM-M- No. 15231 of 2011 (O&M) 3 stated that petitioners has joined the investigation and custodial interrogation is not required. In the present case since police is not asking for custodial interrogation, therefore, interim bail granted to the accused is liable to be confirmed. Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is allowed. Order dated 18.5.2011 is made absolute. (Alok Singh) Judge June 1, 2011 Anand