Criminal Misc. -M No. 20940 of 2011 (1) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. -M No. 20940 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.11.2011 Sanjeev Sood .. Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Madan Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Godara, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. C. L. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent no. 2. Rajesh Bindal, J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in complaint case no. 266/08 dated 22.12.2008 titled as Jagmohan Sharma vs Sanjeev Sood, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistate 1st Class, Kurukshetra. While issuing notice of motion on 13.7.2011, the following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner along with one Brij Mohan Bhanot was the active partner in a firm, named, M/s B.S. Finance to the extent of 40% share each. Mother of the petitioner was a sleeping partner in the aforesaid firm with 20% share. The dispute having arisen between the partners, the matter was referred for arbitration. During the course of arbitration proceedings, it was found that the entire money had been taken by Brij Mohan Bhanot and he was keeping Criminal Misc. -M No. 20940 of 2011 (2) the money of the persons who had invested in the firm. Brij Mohan Bhanot filed objections against the award of the Arbitrator, which were dismissed by the learned court below. Even appeal filed by Brij Mohan Bhanot before this Court has also been dismissed. The present complaint has been filed by one of the relative of Brij Mohan Bhanot with false allegations alleging that way back in the year 2005-06 he deposited ` 1,00,000/- with the petitioner and receipt of only ` 25,300/- was given. The complaint was filed in December, 2008. Once in the arbitration proceedings, it has been found that the entire money deposited with Brij Mohan Bhanot, the petitioner is not at all liable for the alleged offence. Even otherwise the complaint is belated as the receipts were issued to the complainant way back in the year 2005-06, but he kept quiet for 2 to 3 years. The complaint came to be filed only after the award of the Arbitrator.” Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in terms of the order passed by this court on 13.7.2011, the petitioner has already put in appearance before the court below and submitted his bail bonds. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant deposited a sum of ` 25,300/- with the petitioner from May 2005 till February 2006. The amount was to be returned back in the year 2007. The same having not been returned, the complainant had no option but to file a complaint in the court for cheating. However, he was fair enough to submit that no civil action has been initiated by the complainant till date against the petitioner for recovery of the amount allegedly deposited by him with the firm of the petitioner. The complaint was filed in the court on 22.12.2008, in which the petitioner has been summoned to face trial. Criminal Misc. -M No. 20940 of 2011 (3) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions as noticed above, in my opinion, the petitioner is not required to be taken into custody. He has already put in appearance before the court below having been summoned in a complaint filed by the complainant. The interim bail granted to the petitioner on 13.7.2011 is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. 22.11.2011 ( Rajesh Bindal ) vs Judge