CRM-M-9502-2026(O&M) & Ors. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 209 CRM-M-9502-2026(O&M) Date of decision: 14.07.2026 Naresh Kumar and another … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab … Respondents 209(2) CRM-M-11097-2026(O&M) Chetan Verma … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondents 209(3) CRM-M-12779-2026(O&M) Arun Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. APS Deol, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Himmat Deol, Advocate, Ms. Heena Singh, Advocate, and Mr. Arun Kumar Goyat, for the petitioners. Mr. M.S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate, and Mr. N.S. Gill, Advocate, for the complainant. *** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (ORAL) 1. This order shall dispose of all 03 afore-mentioned petitions. The said petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, RAJAN 2026.07.16 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9502-2026(O&M) & Ors. 2 who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed hereunder:- Name & age of Petitioner (s) FIR No. Date Sections(s) Police Station District i) Naresh Kumar, aged 50 years ii) Dinesh Kumar aged 45 years iii) Chetan Verma, aged 33 years iv) Arun Kumar, aged 36 years 0008 24.01.2026 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2) 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) of BNS City Kurali SAS Nagar (Mohali) 2. FIR in the present case was got registered by complainant one Ramesh Kumar Mittal against total 07 accused, namely, I) Arun Kumar, ii) Ravinder Kumar, iii) Chetan Verma, iv) Bhuvnesh Verma, v) Naresh Kumar, vi) Dinesh Kumar, and vii) Rakesh Kumar Badola. 3. On earlier occasions when petitions were considered on 18.02.2026, following order was recorded (in CRM-M-9502-2026):- “2. As per case of the prosecution, complainant–Ramesh Kumar Mittal, a partner of Sukhda Trading Company, entered into an agreement dated 27.04.2023 (Annexure P-5), according to which, complainant's firm acted as the purchaser of land measuring 42 kanals 15 ½ marla, from the owners i.e. Ravinder Kumar and his two sons, Chetan Verma and Bhuvnesh Verma, by recording certain terms and conditions. The relevant three terms i.e. Clause No. 3, 5 and 6 of the agreement dated 27.04.2023 (Annexure P-5) reads as under:- 3. That both the parties have agreed to the terms that after the agreement, the2nd party/purchaser will commercial colony in this land. After carving out the colony, the second party/purchaser will be bound to give the residential/ commercial plots of 6231 sq. yards (Six thousand two hundred thirty one sq. yards) from the RAJAN 2026.07.16 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9502-2026(O&M) & Ors. 3 said colony to the first party on priority basis. The first party will bear all the expenses of getting the above allotted residential/commercial plots registered. That the price of the above mentioned 6231sq. yards (Six thousand two hundred thirty one sq. yards) plots to be allotted by the second party to the first party will be equal to the price of 42 Kanal-16 Marla land given by the first party to the second party. These plots will be given by mutual consent by drawing lots. 4. xx xx xx xx 5. That if the first party sells the allotted plots to any third party, then 3rd party or any other person in whose name registry is executed shall be liable to pay the said expenses like EDC/IDC, IFMS OR ANY OTHER EXPENSES at the time of registry. 6. That if this colony fails due to any legal reason or any other reason, the 2nd party shall be liable to pay Minimum Price Guarantee of Rs. 10,000/- per yard to Ist party. In this, the first party shall have the option to give any plot to 2nd party or not.” 3. In compliance to the terms of compromise, one sale deed 13.05.2023 (Annexure P-6) was executed by the petitioner party regarding 10 kanals and 16 marlas of the land, and another sale deed dated 30.09.2024 was also executed regarding 16 kanals of land. However, for remaining 16 kanals of the land no sale deed was executed. Instead the petitioners party issued a legal notice demanding, the allotment of 10 residential/commercial plots measuring 6231 sq. yards on priority basis, as per term No. 3. However, contention of the counsel is that said legal notice was replied by the complainant-company, leading to the institution of a civil suit for specific performance regarding the remaining 16 kanals of land, which is till date pending. Additionally, an application filed under Order 31 Rule 1 and 2 CPC awaiting a decision. During the pendency of the civil suit, one Arun Kumar filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, which is also pending adjudiciation. As per the contention in that application, it is alleged by the said Arun Kumar that there was already an agreement of sale executed by the petitioner's party herein, in favour of Arun Kumar for the sale of the complete land i.e. 42 RAJAN 2026.07.16 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9502-2026(O&M) & Ors. 4 kanals 15 ½ marlas. Said applicaiton is, till date, pending adjudication. Even Arun Kumar has instituted a separate suit seeking a decree for permanent injunction, however, the broad pleadings raised in the said suit are almost the same. In the said civil suit (CS 253-2025 titled as Arun Kumar vs. Ravinder Kumar and others), an interim stay in favour of Arun Kumar was granted by the Civil Court vide order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P-4). 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further argues that an FIR has now been registered on the grounds that the agreement purported to be of the year 2015, and currently being projected by Arun Kumar in the civil suit filed by him is, infact, forged and fabricated. It is contended that the document was prepared ante-dated to frustrate the rights of the complainant- party from having the rest of the land transferred in their name. Moreover, Arun Kumar and Ravinder Kumar are closely related as family members and the witness Naresh Kumar, is the father-in-law of Chetan Verma and Bhuvnesh Verma (co- accused in the present case). However, it is not an undisputed position that the said agreement to sell, which is alleged to be ante-dated, and purported to be of the year 2015, was never highlighted or used at first instance by any of the three accused persons namely Ravinder Kumar, Chetan Verma and Bhuvnesh Verma. Further submits that, even if the allegations are taken to be correct, the same must be investigated, and then to be proved by investigating agency, by collecting the documentary evidence only, and for the same custodial interrogation would not serve any meaningful purpose. 5. Notice of motion. 6. On advance notice, Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG Punjab, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent – State, and seeks some time to file status report in the matter. 7. Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate and Mr. N.S. Gill, Advocate appear on behalf of the complainant/respondent No. 2 8. Adjourned to 30.04.2026. RAJAN 2026.07.16 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9502-2026(O&M) & Ors. 5 9. Meanwhile, petitioners are directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In the event of their arrest, petitioners shall be released on interim bail, subject to their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. Petitioners shall also abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.). 10. Besides, it is directed that petitioners would hand over their passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if they possess. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that they do not possess any passport. It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioners would seek prior permission of the Court.” 4. On being passing separate orders in different petitions, on the request of learned counsel for the parties, both sides were directed to appear before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court for resolution of the dispute amicably, and the same be executed by recording certain terms and conditions in writing. 5. On 30.04.2026, the Court was apprised by respective learned counsel representing both sides that terms and conditions of the settlement have already been recorded and, thus, dispute before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court has amicably resolved. Along with the quashing petition, i.e. CRM-M-22577-2026, the settlement/greement, dated 09.04.2026, is placed on record, having signed by all respective parties along with witnesses. The terms of settlement recorded in para 7 of the agreement are as under:- “I. That First Party No. 4 namely Arun Kumar has settled the matter with First Party no. 1, 2 & 3 qua their interse dispute. RAJAN 2026.07.16 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9502-2026(O&M) & Ors. 6 II. Further it is settled between the parties that the First Party & other Co-Accused Rakesh Kumar shall file petition(s) for quashing of the above mentioned FIR on or before 17.04.2026 and the second party undertakes that they will co-operate in all respects in quashing the above mentioned FIR, such as making statements before the Court concerned or filing of any affidavit. if required. III. That once the Hon'ble High Court directs the parties for recording of the statements for the purpose of quashing of the FIR, all the parties agree that they shall get the statements recorded at the earliest for this purpose as well as for the disposal of the Civil Suits on the same day in terms of the compromise before the concerned courts. IV. That after recording such statements, the bail petitions pending before this Hon'ble Court shall be disposed in accordance with law. V. That it is agreed between the parties that the First Party No.1. 2 & 3 undertakes that they will execute the sale deed of the remaining land (16 kanals as detailed in Civil Suit no. 162 of 2025 titled as Sukhda Trading Co. vs Ravinder Kumar and Ors.) in favour of the second party simultaneously with quashing of the above mentioned FIR. It is agreed between the parties that the second party is agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,46,75,000/- (Rupees Two Crores, Forty Six Lacs and Seventy Five Thousand only) including 1% TDS as per the shares of the concerned parties, at the time of or before execution of the sale deed. VI. That Second Party will be entitled to get the sale deed executed on or before 31 July'2026 and not thereafter in whatsoever circumstances. VII. That it is agreed between the parties that the second party shall not object if the First Party No. 1 namely Ravinder Kumar wants to shift/transfer his tubewell and its connection installed on the disputed land, at some other place as per their will. VIII. That it is agreed between the parties that in case, any dispute/litigation arises because of mining/levelling of earth, Forest Destruction or any other departmental action on the said RAJAN 2026.07.16 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9502-2026(O&M) & Ors. 7 land in dispute, the second party shall be liable/responsible for the same wholly solely. IX. That both the parties to cooperate with each other to get compliance of all the conditions detailed herein above. However in case of difficulty arising out of unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the parties, both the parties agree to cooperate with each other for extension of reasonable time (earliest possible) for compliance of such condition. X. That the second party agrees to pay a Demand Draft of Rupees One Lac in the name of Miss Heena Singh (Advocate) as litigation expenses on the date of final hearing of quashing petition.” 5. It is informed by learned Senior counsel for the complainant that in tune of the recorded terms, all civil proceedings have already been withdrawn, and only one condition is yet to be followed, i.e. making of payment of Rs.2,46,75,000/- by the complainant-Ramesh Kumar Mittal at the time of execution of sale deed by the petitioner(s)-party on or before 31.07.2026. 6. In view of the common stand taken by all the representing counsel qua their respective parties, anticipatory bail petitions, i.e. CRM-M- 9502-2026(O&M); CRM-M-11097-2026(O&M); and CRM-M-12779-2026 (O&M), wherein investigation has already been joined by the petitioners, and not objected by learned State counsel, requiring their custody for further interrogation, interim orders dated 18.02.2026 in CRM-M-9502-2026; 25.02.2026 in CRM-M-11097-2026; and 09.03.2026 CRM-M-12779-2026, are hereby made absolute. Accordingly, petitions are allowed. Before parting with the order, it is clarified that for the purpose of execution of the sale deed, and also for making payment by the RAJAN 2026.07.16 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-9502-2026(O&M) & Ors. 8 complainant party, and in whose favour the sale deed is to be executed, necessary exchange of documents, i.e. concerned name(s), mobile/PAN numbers, email IDs etc., would be done within the stipulated time period. Otherwise, adverse view can be taken or impression can be drawn by this Court, if so pointed out by filing application for recalling of the present order by any of the parties. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of the other connected cases. ( Sanjay Vashisth ) Judge 14.07.2026 Rajan Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RAJAN 2026.07.16 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document