JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Tewari, J. (Oral) - The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.55, dated 23.8.2011, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120- B of the IPC, at Police Station Mullanpur Garibdas, Mohali. 2. On 21.10.2011, the following contention was noticed :- “ Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the main accused is Dr. Varun Sharma @ Manish Jain who has been released on bail and the petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor has any other allegation against him.” 3. Apart from that, counsel for the petitioner has argued that as far as the present complainants are concerned, they have no locus standi to file the complaint. He has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Md. Ibrahim & others vs State of Bihar & another,[2009(5) LAW HERALD (SC) 3310] : 2009 (4) RCR (Criminal) 369, wherein it has been held as follows :- “ 14. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed, to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently inducted him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in section 415 are not found, it cannot be said that there was an offence punishable under sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 of the Code. 15. When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint. The term ‘fraud’ is not defined in the Code. The dictionary definition of ‘fraud’ is “deliberate deception, treachery or cheating intended to gain advantage”. Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1872 defines ‘fraud’ with reference to a party to a contract. In Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1572, this Court explained the meaning of the expression ‘defraud’ thus :- ‘The expression ‘defraud’ involves two elements, namely, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a noneconomic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied.” 4. Counsel for the respondent has accepted the factual assertions but has argued that it was on the investigation of Dr. Varun Sharma @ Manish Jain, it transpires that the main accused is the petitioner who has also witnessed the said agreement to sell. 5. Be that as it may, in view of the admitted facts and the position of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Md. Varun Sharma @ Manish Jain, it transpires that the main accused is the petitioner who has also witnessed the said agreement to sell. 5. Be that as it may, in view of the admitted facts and the position of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Md. Ibrahim & others’ case (supra), I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 9.11.2011 or on any other day on which he requires the presence of the petitioner and in the event of his appearance, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Investigating Officer to his satisfaction subject to the conditions as laid down in Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Petition stands disposed of. ----------------