REEMA SAINI 2026.07.24 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-13027 of 2026 (O&M) and CRM-M-15203 of 2026 (O&M) -2- 2. Complainant Sanjeev Kumar lodged the FIR alleging that accused Chander Prakash Kathuria had constructed residential-cum- commerial buildings in Sector 32 Karnal, in the name and style of ‘Ultra Tech Township Developers Private Limited, and accused No.2-Arvind Kaushik, was his agent and representative. Accused No.2- Arvind Kaushik, lured the petitioner to defraud him and enticed him to purchase two commercial shops in the township assuring that the project was approved and was highly profitable. Sale consideration of Rs. 35,00,000/- was first fixed for both the shops and the money was paid in bank accounts of both the accused. Accused-Arvind Kaushik also took 5 cheques from the complainant out of which three were taken in the name of the Company and two in his personal account. Last amount was paid on 24.08.2021. Several times, accused were requested for possession of the shops but they kept delaying the matter. They neither handed over possession nor executed any sale deed. 3. Vide orders dated 06.04.2026 and 13.05.2026, arrest of the petitioners was stayed and the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for mediation but no settlement could be reached. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner-Chander Prakash Kathuria submits that complainant only paid Rs.15,00,000/- to the Company in the year 2021. As per policy, he was required to deposit 25 % of the total sale consideration as earnest money which he failed to do. For nearly 5 years, after part payment was made in 2021, he did not raise any grievance and when value of the property increased substantially, he lodged the FIR REEMA SAINI 2026.07.24 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-13027 of 2026 (O&M) and CRM-M-15203 of 2026 (O&M) -3- asserting false claim for execution of sale deed, though he paid only Rs.15,00,000/-. Any transaction between complainant and Arvind Kaushik, did not bind the petitioner, as Arvind Kaushik, was not authorised representative, agent or Director of the Company. Instead of filing a civil suit for specific performance, complainant maliciously lodged the criminal proceedings without any legal right. The dispute, if any, was purely of civil nature relating to property transaction and did not disclose any ingredients of cheating, criminal breach of trust under Sections 318 and 319 BNS . He added the petitioner was still ready and willing to execute the sale deeds in favour of the complainant. Petitioner, therefore, deserved protection from arrest. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner-Arvind Kaushik submits that the FIR was lodged more than 4 years after the agreement only to harass the petitioner though the dispute was purely of civil nature. Civil dispute was given criminal colour as period of limitation for filing suit for specific performance of contract had expired. He further argued that petitioner twice appeared before the office of Developer for execution of the agreement to sell but the complainant did not put in appearance on which account legal notice Annexure P-5 was also sent to him. Later on, a new agreement to sell was executed by the complainant with the petitioner on record as Annexure P-4 on 01.08.2025. The case was registered without disclosing the subsequent sale agreement. It was prayed that petitioner be released on anticipatory bail. REEMA SAINI 2026.07.24 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-13027 of 2026 (O&M) and CRM-M-15203 of 2026 (O&M) -4- 6. Learned State counsel assisted by Mr. Nitin Bhanwala, Advocate for the complainant, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bails submitting that petitioner-Chander Prakash Kathuria, being Director of of ‘Ultra Tech Township Developers Private Limited, and petitioner-Arvind Kaushik, being his representative induced the complainant to invest Rs.34,00,000/- in the project but failed to deliver the shops, instead sold the project to another party, committing fraud. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners was necessary for recovery of the defrauded amount. 7. As per allegations complainant entered into an oral purchase agreement with ‘Ultra Tech Township Developers Private Limited’ for purchase of two under constructions shop. Petitioner-Chander Prakash Kathuria was Director of the company while petitioner No.2 was the representative. It was in the year 2001 that payments were made. Claim of the petitioners is that the complainant failed to perform his part of the contract on which account no written agreement to sell was formally executed and he lodged criminal case maliciously after several years instead of availing civil remedy in Courts of law. The essence of the offence of cheating is the existence of a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the initial promise. Whether or not the petitioners had dishonest intention at the beginning of the transaction or it is merely a case of breach of contract by the complainant, are facts which would require assessment and analysis of evidence. Petitioners have roots in the society and have shown their bonafide conveying that they were still ready to honour the terms of oral agreement. Considering the nature and substance of allegations in the FIR, the fact that the case is triable by the Court of Magistrate, delay REEMA SAINI 2026.07.24 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-13027 of 2026 (O&M) and CRM-M-15203 of 2026 (O&M) -5- in lodging the FIR and the availability of civil remedy, which complainant did not choose to avail, it is a fit case to allow anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 8. The petitions for anticipatory bail are allowed. Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating/Arresting Officer and join investigation within one week or as and when required. In the event of their arrest, the Investigating/Arresting Officer shall release the petitioners on anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal/surety bonds to his/her satisfaction. The petitioners shall also abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected case. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 23.07.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No REEMA SAINI 2026.07.24 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh