JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.: - Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.155 dated 16.10.2014 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B registered at Police Station City Kharar, District Mohali. 2. Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant appeared and contested the petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. 4. From the record, I find that FIR has been registered on the basis of application moved by complainant Anil Kumar against the petitioners on the allegations that Ashwani Kumar agreed to sell plot measuring 113.33 sq. yards for Rs.11,33,333/-. He executed agreement to sell dated 30.05.2011 in favour of the complainant on receipt of entire sale consideration and agreed to execute the sale deed in his favour. However, later on it was found by the complainant that accused Ashwani Kumar is not owner of the said plot and owns 85 sq. yards only and he along with his son Muneesh Kumar, cheated the complainant. Ashwani Kumar by writing on reverse side of the agreement, had returned Rs.45,000/- in cash and issued two cheques of Rs.5,88,333/- and Rs.5 lacs in favour of the complainant, which on presentation, were dishonoured. 5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that dispute between the parties is mainly of civil nature but no civil suit for specific performance of the agreement or in the alternative, for return of the earnest money has been filed. No complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been filed regarding dishonour of the cheques. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record copy of the sale deed showing that petitioner Ashwani Kumar is owner of 2 kanals 14 marlas, which he has purchased vide sale deed Annexure P-2. 6. The petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are not required for custodial interrogation. The case is mainly based on documentary evidence. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners to custody. 7. 6. The petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are not required for custodial interrogation. The case is mainly based on documentary evidence. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners to custody. 7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and without discussing the merits of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it a fit case where petitioners are entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 26.11.2014 granting interim bail to the petitioners is made absolute. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————