JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.(Oral):- Petitioner-Chaman Lal son of Karam Chand, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.09 dated 21.01.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, by the police of Police Station Adampur, District Jalandhar, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. The prosecution claimed that complainant-Tajinder Kumar and petitioner-Chaman Lal had orally agreed to purchase the land, in question, situated in village Talhan, District Jalandhar, from one Balbir Singh son of Late S.Dharam Singh. It was claimed that complainant- Tajinder Kumar was entitled to ¾th share, whereas the petitioner was entitled to ¼th share in the indicated land, but the actual agreement to sell was written in the name of the petitioner alone. As per subsequent agreement dated 26.10.2009(Annexure P-2), the petitioner has already given the land measuring 26 marlas out of it to the complainant, whereas his remaining share was to be given to him on his making payment of Rs.5 lacs to the petitioner. The present case was registered for violation of the terms & conditions of the agreement(Annexure P-2). In this manner, the dispute between the parties appears to be purely of a civil nature. Whether the parties orally agreed to their indicated share or not, whether any terms & conditions of the subsequent agreement(Annexure P-2) were violated by the petitioner, are the matter/dispute to be decided by the civil court and not by the criminal courts. Therefore, to my mind, the present case appears to have been registered against the petitioner in order to execute a non-existent decree of the civil court and to wreak vengeance, which is not legally permissible. 5. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Therefore, to my mind, the present case appears to have been registered against the petitioner in order to execute a non-existent decree of the civil court and to wreak vengeance, which is not legally permissible. 5. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to his satisfaction, subject to all other conditions, as contemplated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case during trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail. At the same time, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of his bail, in this regard. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ———————————