SUNIL BEHL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.

(2.) I have been taken through the facts of the case. I rieed not to mention the same here as these are detailed in Annexure P. 1, order dated 21.12.99 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad.

(3.) The petitioner is facing trial in this case on the allegations that he in connivance with his co-accused allegedly cheated the complainant M/s. Dolphin India Limited to the tune of rupees 76.5 lacs by inducement and using forged documents. Many other cases of the same nature have also been registered against the petitioner and his co- accused.