TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erim bail, to join the investigation, subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. - CRM-M No.16890 of 2020 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 6-7-2020 - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN Present : Mr. V.K. Jindal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners (through video conferencing) Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, AAG, Punjab. (through video conferencing) Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the complainant (through video conferencing) ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No.151 dated 18.06.2020 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC ) at Police Station City Batala, District Batala. On 29.06.2020, the following order was passed:- Heard through video conferencing. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a total mismatch as regards the contents of the FIR and the investigation which has been carried out on the basis of the FIR. It has further been contended that though the FIR talks about the purchase of jewellery by the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther argued that in fact, the dispute between the complainant and his mother arose with the petitioners, on account of a registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 22.06.2017, in furtherance of which the petitioner No.1 has entered into an agreement to sell on 04.12.2019 with one Damandeep Singh and Barinder Pal Singh on behalf of the complainant. It is also submitted that even on that account, Damandeep Singh and Barinder Pal Singh have filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the complainant, his mother and petitioner No.1 on 03.05.2020 and the same is pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Batala. It is further argued that in fact, it is the complainant, who owe an amount of ₹ 26 lacs to petitioner No.1 and in this regard, on dishonouring of a cheque issued by the complainant and his mother, the petitioner No.1 has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 13.05.2020, which is also pending before the Court at Batala. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that in fact, the present FIR was registered regarding the purchase of some jewelleries on behalf of the aforesaid two persons and later on, by way of two Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of ₹ 10 lacs as earnest money and thus, have committed the fraud. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also argued that the complainant has made improvements in their versions while recording the two DDRs, which are not pleaded either in the civil suit for permanent injunction or in the complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is further submitted that the matter is already pending before the various Courts and is of civil nature and just to put pressure on the petitioners, the present FIR has been registered to give it a colour of criminal litigation. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that he has the instructions to say that the petitioners are ready to deposit the amount of ₹ 10 lacs with the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, subject to final outcome of the case, to be kept in an FDR. In reply, counsel for the State assisted by counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the complainant has given the first application dated 21.02.2020 regarding the cheating of ₹ 51.76 lacs and on account of gold transactions on behalf of the aforesaid two persons i.e. Jaswinder Kaur and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein the son and wife of Barinder Pal Singh, are accused. Counsel for the complainant has also submitted that in fact, a suit for recovery and mandatory injunction was also filed by M/s. Kartike Gold Enterprises in which the complainant is a partner before the Commercial Court at Gurdaspur on 13.02.2020 against petitioner No.2 and his firm M/s. Shree Ganesh Enterprises regarding a cheque of ₹ 26 lacs and another suit for recovery is filed on the basis of the sale of gold and the payments due against petitioner No.1. In reply, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has again reiterated the argument that in none of the civil suit filed and relied upon by the complainant, the factum of cheating as alleged in the present FIR is mentioned and further argued that it is own case of the complainant that there are business transactions qua which both the parties are demanding money against each other. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the present petition. Admittedly, the FIR was registered with allegation of cheating with the complainant regarding the sale of gold by the complainant and his mother Usha Rani with the firm M/s. Kartike ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
