JUDGMENT : AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. 1. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the entire money was received by Nihal Kaur even as per the FIR and there was no question therefore for the petitioner to keep Rs.60,000/-, however, it is not denied any where that the land in question was encumbered by a loan, which fact was not disclosed either by the petitioner or Nihal Kaur (at least as per the allegations made in the FIR), which facts are not shown to be refuted at any stage. 2. Consequently, without making any comment on the actual culpability of the petitioner or otherwise, which would be gone into by the investigating agency and the competent Court at the appropriate stage, this petition is dismissed.