The main legal point established is the questionable validity of the second FIR and the significance of documentary evidence in the case.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.498 dated 14.12.2021 registered under Sections 380, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula, District Panchkula.

2. FIR, in the present case, has been registered by Santosh Ahuja, who had alleged that she had made several complaints against the present petitioner and Azad Duhan and the present petitioner had stolen cheque book No.732092 from the office of her son namely Aman Ahuja, as the petitioner and the said Aman Ahuja were on friendly terms and thereafter, the petitioner had misused the said cheque book by filling upcheque No.732092 for an amount of Rs.2,90,00,000/-and had committed fraud. It is further alleged in the FIR that the petitioner had prepared a fake agreement to sell with respect to House/Kothi No.21, Sector-10, Panchkula by forging signatures of the complainant and regarding which, an FIR No.303 dated 03.06.2020 had already been registered. On the basis of the said primary allegations, the present FIR was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the present petitioner and son of the complainant namely Aman Ahuja had a friendly relationship and on 17.12.2015, son of the complainant had requested the petitioner to buy a House/Kothi No.21, Sector-10, Panchkula, which was in the name of Santosh Ahuja (complainant) and the price of the said house was settled at Rs.2,90,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the petitioner alongwith his friends i.e. Vicky, Jitender and Naresh had jointly made the payment with respect to the said house. It is contended that when the complainant and her son had not executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and had not returned the said amount to him, the petitioner had moved a complaint on 11.12.2019 in the office of DCP, Panchkula and subsequent thereto, the complainant-Santosh Ahuja had issued a cheque No.732092 for an amount of Rs.2,90,00,000/-. It is further contended that when the said cheque was dishonoured on 21.03.2020, the petitioner had moved a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1881") against the said Santosh Ahuja, in which notice has been issued. It is argued that on account of theinfluence which the complainant's family has, FIR No.303 dated 03.06.2020 was registered by the complainant herself. The said FIR has been annexed as Annexure P-3 with the present petition. It has been argued that perusal of the said FIR would show that the allegations levelled therein, with respect to preparation of a false agreement to sell of the house in question, are similar to the allegations which have been made in the present FIR. It is further highlighted that in the said FIR No.303 (Annexure P-3), it was stated by the complainant that her son had taken a loan of Rs.50,00,000/- from the present petitioner and her son had demanded back the blank documents/cheques etc. which had been given by her son to Sumit (present petitioner). It is submitted that perusal of the same would show that there were financial dealings between the son of the complainant and petitioner and the cheques had also been handed over. However, the allegations in the present FIR with respect to the said incident are contrary to the allegations made in the first FIR. It is contended that the petitioner had applied for regular bail in the said case (FIR No.303) and the Coordinate Bench of this Court, on 11.09.2020, was pleased to grant regular bail to the petitioner. A perusal of the said order would show that during the course of hearing, it was argued by the complainant that although, six cheques had been handed over but one more cheque amounting to Rs.2,90,00,000/- was still in possession of the petitioner and the same had not been handed over.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has highlighted the fact that from the a