JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.: - The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.82 dated 11.4.2013 registered at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh, for the offence under Section 420 IPC. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the dispute is mainly of civil nature. A suit for recovery of the disputed amount is already pending before the Civil Court. As regards the dishonour of cheque, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’) is also pending. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further contended that no cheating is made out. Rather, it is a case of civil nature and the petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation. 3. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the U.T., Chandigarh and learned senior counsel for the complainant opposed the bail petition. The main contention of the learned senior counsel for the complainant is that intention of the petitioner is to be seen which was dishonest and mala fide from the very beginning as in the agreement, which is Annexure-P.4, Ram Kumar Garg-petitioner has stated himself as sole proprietor of M/s Lakshmi Oil & Soap Mills and had signed the agreement as sole proprietor. He further argued that title deed of plot No.5 has also not been given to the Bank to create mortgage. 4. I have gone through the record and heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. From the record, I find that the complainant has advanced the loan of about Rs.6 Crores to the petitioner. It was the duty of the complainant also to verify whether the petitioner is the sole proprietor or only a partner in the firm especially when the complainant is advancing loan of Rs.6 Crores. Secondly, civil suit for recovery of the loan amount is already pending before the Civil Court. As regards the cheque, which has been dishonoured, the complainant is seeking the remedy under Section 138 of the NI Act and a complaint is stated to be pending. A mere fact that in the agreement it is written as sole proprietor instead of partner does not constitute a criminal offence. As regards the cheque, which has been dishonoured, the complainant is seeking the remedy under Section 138 of the NI Act and a complaint is stated to be pending. A mere fact that in the agreement it is written as sole proprietor instead of partner does not constitute a criminal offence. Similarly, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has stated that at the time of execution of the agreement the title deed of plot No.5 was with the Bank, which was to be redeemed after making the payment and on this ground also no criminal offence is made out. 6. The petitioner has already joined the investigation. The case is based on documentary evidence. The petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner to custody. 7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts in detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the interim order dated 27.6.2013 passed by this Court granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. --------0.B.S.0------------