IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Misc.Petition No.M-19790 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.12.2009 Rajiv Kumar. ....... Petitioner through Shri Heman Aggarwal, Advocate for Shri Suresh Goel, Advocate. Versus State of Haryana and another. ....... Respondent no.1 through Shri Gurpartap Singh Gill, Addl.Advocate General. Respondent no.2 through Shri Hemant Bassi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This is a petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in an offence registered vide F.I.R.No.290 dated 27.5.2009 under Sections 420, 468, 470, 471, 34 of the I.P.C. at Police Station, Civil Lines, Sonepat. The petitioner is facing allegations of having abused a cheque which was allegedly in his custody and was given to him about seventeen years back during the course of some business transaction. Crl.Misc.Petition No.M-19790 of 2009 -2- .... Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had business transactions with respondent no.2 at some time and the cheque which had been issued by the said respondent pertained to same point of time, but the relations had gone sour between them and the cheque had been issued to his mother-in-law,which was disputed by the complainant, who said that the account had been closed long back and a fraud has been committed. Noticing the above contentions and also noticing the fact that prima facie, it appeared that there were business interest of the parties which existed at some pointy of time and had ceased since long, the matter was adjourned to 16.9.2009, but, at the same time, the petitioner was directed to join the investigation in the interest of the investigation. During the course of proceedings, the petitioner and the complainant have settled the matter and have effected compromise. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent no.2 has not disputed the factum of compromise. Having regard to the aforesaid fact and also the fact that pursuant to the directions dated 30.7.2009, the petitioner has joined the investigation, this petition is accepted and the interim directions dated 30.7.2009 are made absolute subject to the condition that the petitioner shall continue to comply with the provisions of Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. December 14,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge