Crl. Misc. -M No. 25026 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. -M No. 25026 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.9.2011 Om Parkash and another ..Petitioners. Vs. State of Haryana ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present : Mr. Sandeep Goyat, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the complainant. RAJESH BINDAL, J. On 19.8.2011, while issuing notice of motion, the following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners were noticed: “Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that FIR in question is counter blast to the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by petitioner No.1 against the husband of the complainant. In fact, on an earlier complaint filed by the complainant, the matter was investigated by the Economic Offence Cell and it was found that dispute was civil in nature. The present FIR has been registered on a complaint filed by the complainant in Court under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.” Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Balwan Singh as well as the counsel for the complainant submitted that though the petitioners have joined investigation, however, recovery of the amount as well as two cheques as alleged are still to be effected from the petitioners. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident from the paper book and it is not disputed that the loan was taken by the husband of the complainant and even cheques were also issued by him. Still the complaint has been got filed by him through his Crl. Misc. -M No. 25026 of 2011 -2- wife. Further the present complainant had filed application before Superintendent of Police dated 20.6.2011 alleging that her husband had taken a loan of ` 40,000/- from petitioner No.2 and further that he had taken a loan of ` 1,40,000/- from State Bank of India and out of that money ` 1,30,000/- was fraudulently taken by petitioner No.2. Dates of both the aforesaid loans is missing in the application. These dates have not been disclosed even to the Investigating Officer. On the complaint filed in the Court the factum regarding taking of loan of ` 1,40,000/- by the husband of the complainant from State Bank of India and further that ` 1,30,000/- out of them was taken fraudulently by petitioner No.2 is missing. The petitioners as well as husband of the complainant are employees in Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the petitioners are not required to be taken into custody for interrogation. Interim bail granted to the petitioners on 19.8.2011 is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. ( Rajesh Bindal ) 23.9.2011 Judge Meenu