Criminal Misc.-M No. 18271 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 18271 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.9.2011 Balwinder Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. P. S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J. S. Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in the present case is an agriculturist. Harwinder Singh is a commission agent. The petitioner had raised loan from Harwinder Singh, for which he got some blank documents signed from him. He forged an agreement to sell the land owned by the petitioner dated 12.9.2000 in favour of Tejinder Singh and on the basis thereof filed a civil suit on 17.2.2004, as attorney of Tejinder Singh. The same was decreed on 30.10.2008. He further submitted that allegations regarding cheating have been made stating that the petitioner had earlier entered into an agreement for sale of the same land with one Hazari Lal on 7.6.1999. Hazari Lal also filed a suit, which was decreed ex-parte in his favour on 5.9.2007. The sale deed was also registered in his favour through court. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the decree passed in favour of the complainant is pending. Referring to the aforesaid facts, he submitted that both the agreements were subject-matter of civil suits which were decreed. Appeal Criminal Misc.-M No. 18271 of 2011 [2] in the decree passed in favour of Tejinder Singh filed by the petitioner is pending, whereas a civil suit filed by Tejinder Singh challenging the decree passed in favour of Hazari Lal is also pending. The matter being an old and based on documents, the petitioner is not required to be taken into custody at this stage. On the other hand, learned counsels for the State as well as the complainant submitted that the suit filed by the complainant was contested by the petitioner, whereas the suit filed by Hazari Lal was decreed ex-parte. The complainant had paid ` 5,00,000/- as earnest money and thereafter deposited ` 5,00,000/- in court after the suit was decreed. He contested the litigation for a period of about 10 years. The agreement to sell allegedly executed by the petitioner in favour of Hazari Lal is a forged document prepared later on to defeat the rights of Tejinder Singh. However, he did not dispute that he came to know about the agreement and the civil suit by Hazari Lal in the year 2009, but the FIR was got registered in 2011. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that civil litigation between the parties was pending for about 10 years; the FIR was got registered by the complainant two years after he came to know about the facts which, according to him, constituted cheating, the suit filed by the complainant against the decree passed in favour of Hazari Lal is still pending, in my opinion, the petitioner is not required to be taken into custody. Accordingly, the interim bail granted to the petitioner on 7.6.2011 is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 28.9.2011 mk