JUDGMENT S.S. Saron, J.:-Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner by way of the present petition seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 406, 420 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short). 3. The FIR in the case has been registered on a complaint made by the Sub- Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Rewari. It has inter alia been stated in the application for initiating appropriate action against the petitioner after registering FIR against him that one Om Parkash was owner-in-possession of land measuring 12 kanals 5 marlas i.e. 1/8th share of land measuring 97 kanals 17 marlas in Village Fidheri which he (Om Parkash) had purchased vide sale deed dated 25.6.1993. The said Om Parkash had sold 2 kanals 15 marlas of land in Rectangle No.31 out of his land measuring 12 kanals 5 marlas by a registered sale deed dated 26.6.1996 in favour of the petitioner. However, while preparing the jamabandi (Record of Rights) for the year 2000-01, the Revenue Patwari entered the name of the petitioner as owner of the entire 1/8th share of land measuring 97 kanals 17 marlas by mistake. Thereafter, land comprised in Rectangle No.28 and 29 was acquired by the State for raising Police lines. The compensation for the acquired land amounting to Rs.7,01,438/- was paid to the petitioner by a cheque dated 22.9.2008. The petitioner in fact was aware that he was not entitled to the said amount of compensation, however, he accepted the said amount. He was called in the office of the Sub- Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Land Acquisition Collector on 3.11.2008 and he stated that he would return the cheque which he had received. The petitioner, thereafter, deposited cheque No.418192 for a sum of Rs.7,01,438/- in the office. The said cheque however has not been honoured. In this manner, it is alleged that the petitioner has wrongly received the amount. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per revenue records, the petitioner is recorded as owner of 1/8th share of land measuring 97 kanals 17 marlas. It is submitted that he is a co-sharer of the land in dispute. In this manner, it is alleged that the petitioner has wrongly received the amount. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per revenue records, the petitioner is recorded as owner of 1/8th share of land measuring 97 kanals 17 marlas. It is submitted that he is a co-sharer of the land in dispute. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a Civil Suit, the plaint of which it is dated 1.12.2008, claiming declaration to the effect that Fard Badar No.1 dated 29.9.08 and subsequent enteries correcting the revenue records are patently illegal and confers no right on Om Parkash (defendant No.1). A further prayer has been made for granting a decree of permanent injunction for restraining Om Parkash (defendant No.1) from obtaining compensation regarding the land on the basis of the said illegal revenue record/fard badar No.1 and defendants No.2 to 6 in the said suit who are the State, the Revenue officials and Land Acquisition Collector from making payment of compensation to Om Parkash (defendant No.1). Therefore, it is submitted that no offence is made out against the petitioner. 5. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner himself returned the amount which he had received as compensation. However, the cheque that was submitted has been dishonoured which would clearly show his involvement and dishonest intention. It is also submitted that in fact the petitioner had purchased only 2 kanals 15 marlas of land out of land measuring 12 kanals 5 marlas i.e. 1/8th share of land measuring 97 kanals 17 marlas in pursuance of sale deed dated 26.6.1996. Thereafter, he had sold the said land further on 16.7.1998 to one Manohar Lal. Therefore, there is a clear cut dishonest intention of the petitioner to embezzle the amount. 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that indeed the payment of Rs.7,01438/- was made by mistake to the petitioner and this fact is also accepted by the petitioner inasmuch as he by way of cheque No.418192 for a sum of Rs.7,01438 had returned the said amount. The said cheque given by the petitioner has, however, had been dishonoured. Therefore, this is an intention on the part of the petitioner to embezzle the amount of compensation that had been received by him. The said cheque given by the petitioner has, however, had been dishonoured. Therefore, this is an intention on the part of the petitioner to embezzle the amount of compensation that had been received by him. The petitioner is in no manner entitled to the amount of compensation on the basis of wrong entries in the revenue records. 7. In the circumstances, the matter would require to be investigated and the custodial interrogation would be required, which in fact in the facts and circumstances would be qualitatively more informative and elicitation oriented. 8. In view of the above, no ground for pre-arrest bail to the petitioner is made out and the Crl. Misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed. -------------------