Judgment N.C.Khichi, J. 1. A case under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC stands registered against the petitioner at Police Station Central Chandigarh at the instance of his elder brother Dr. Mahesh Batra. The allegations against the petitioner are that some blank papers and blank forms duly signed by the complainant Dr. Mahesh Batra were left by him with his father Shri B.L. Batra and that his shares, the shares of his wife and minor children were transferred without consent from four companies i.e. Gajraj Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Batra Breweries and Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Batra Hotels, Pvt. Ltd. and Batra Financier Pvt. Ltd. to another company Batra Films Pvt. Ltd. by using those blank forms and papers. It is further the case of the prosecution that the petitioner did not return those blank forms/papers inspite of requests having been made to him by the complainant. Further detailed facts are given in the order of learned Sessions Judge, Copy Annexure P.1. 2. The request of the petitioner for the grant of anticipatory bail was declined by the learned Sessions Judge vide order, copy Annexure P.1 on the ground that certain record is yet to be taken into possession by the Investigating Agency. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a family dispute and after registration of the case, the petitioner joined the investigation and supplied the required documents to the police as is clear from the record of the police as contained in Annexure P.3. The matter was then investigated by Inspector P.K. Dhawan and he also found that no case was made out. Lastly Inspector K.P. Singh Incharge Economic Offences Wing was supplied the original request letter dated 2.7.1993 signed by the complainant and letter dated 5.7.1993 signed by Mrs. Manju Batra and also 13 original transferred shares of 5 companies vide memo dated 1.5.1999 copy whereof is Annexure P.4. He has further contended that the petitioner has already joined investigation and has produced the record and that if any other record is required he will produce the same. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent have vehemently contended that the petitioner has forged four blank papers handed over to him so as to transfer the shares belonging to the complainant and his other family members. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent have vehemently contended that the petitioner has forged four blank papers handed over to him so as to transfer the shares belonging to the complainant and his other family members. It has further been argued that certain documents are required to be recovered and as such custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. 5. After considering the rival contentions of the learned counsel for both sides and on consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is a family dispute. The petitioner has already joined the investigation of the case and has produced certain documents required by the police. 6. Thus, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it a fit case where extraordinary powers vested under section 438 Cr.P.C. ought to be invoked. Consequently, the petitioner is allowed anticipatory bail and a direction is issued to the Investigating Officer to enlarge the petitioner on bail to his satisfaction in the event of his arrest in this case. The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required. He shall not temper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. He shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court.