JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this matter and the matter relates to civil dispute between the petitioners and the complainant and they have entered into an agreement for sale of a residential house situated in Mansarovar, Jaipur. Counsel further submits that the matter/dispute between the petitioners and the complainant is pending under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the competent court of jurisdiction. Counsel further submits that earlier the petitioners and the complainant entered into a compromise dated 20.10.2018, however the complainant has not honoured the said compromise. 3. During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are ready to repay the loan amount of LIC Housing Development Corporation within a period of six months, if the complainant is interested in keeping the house of the petitioners subject to payment of Rs. 69 lacs by the complainant. 4. In support of the contentions, counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. C.B.I., New Delhi reported in AIR 2003 SC 2545 : JT 2003 (4) SC 381. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application and submitted that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 1,57,00,000/- to the petitioners which has been admitted by counsel for the petitioner and further submits that the petitioners took a loan of Rs. 1.66 crores from the LIC Housing Development Corporation which they still have not repaid and the petitioners have cheated the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,57,00,000/-. 6. Counsel for the complainant further submits that though the petitioners have relied upon the compromise dated 20.10.2018, but they themselves have lodged an FIR No. 0042/2019 at Police Station, Shiprapath, Jaipur City (South) alleging therein that the complainant has forcefully taken the signatures of the petitioners on the said compromise dated 20.10.2018 and the investigation in the said FIR is still going on. 7. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant the anticipatory bail to the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 8. 7. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant the anticipatory bail to the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, the bail application stands dismissed.