Crl. Misc. No. M- 18950 of 20009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 18950 of 20009 (O&M) Date of decision: February 16, 2010 Naresh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. AS Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. GURDEV SINGH, J. This petition by Naresh Kumar-petitioner, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') is for issuance of a direction to respondents No.1 to 7 to give seven days prior notice before his arrest, if any case under cognizable offence is registered against him, on the basis of the complaints moved by respondents No. 8 to 13. According to the petitioner, he is running the business of commission agent under the name and style of M/s Gupta Sales Corporation, being its sole proprietor. In that capacity he is advancing loan to the agriculturists who come to his shop to sell their crops. The loan was advanced to respondents No. 8 to 13 in cash as well as on the basis of pro- notes and receipts duly executed by them. He filed a civil suit against them Crl. Misc. No. M- 18950 of 20009 [2] for the recovery of the loan amount, which was decreed by the civil court and in some cases execution applications are pending before the executing court. One Harish Chander took jewellery worth Rs. 1.5 lakhs from him and agreed to return the same by executing amanatnama dated 7.6.2006 (Annexure P/4). When he demanded back that jewellery, the same was not returned. Accordingly, he gave an application to the police for registration of a case against that Harish Chander, but no action was taken thereof. Thereafter, he filed a private complaint against him, his wife and two brothers for mis-appropriating his jewellary. In that complaint only Harish Chander was summoned. He filed a civil suit for recovery of those gold ornaments. Thus, the amanatnama is subject matter of the criminal as well as civil proceedings. Harish Chander gave an application against the him and another and on the basis of that FIR No. 154 dated 6.6.2009 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Faridkot, under Sections 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 474/120-B IPC. He has already been released on bail in that FIR. Now he has come to know from reliable sources that respondents No. 8 to 13 have given seven applications against him to the SSP, Faridkot/respondent No.2 to take action against him by alleging that he has forged and fabricated the pro-notes and receipts. Inquiries are being conducted in those applications by the police officials, though they have no jurisdiction to hold such inquiries as the subject matter is pending before the civil court and is sub-judice. As per the knowledge of the petitioner, no case has been registered on the the basis of the complaints of those persons against him so far. Reply on behalf of the official respondents was filed by Jhalmal Singh, Superintendent of Police, by means of his affidavit. According to Crl. Misc. No. M- 18950 of 20009 [3] him, the police is not surpassing the civil court decree passed in favour of the petitioner and that no one sided inquiry shall be conducted, action will be taken on the applications of respondents No. 8 to 13 as per law. FIR No. 154 was correctly registered against the petitioner in accordance with law. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the subject matter of the applications given against him by respondents No. 8 to 13 to the police is the subject matter of the civil suit already filed by him against those respondents and as such, no FIR can be registered on the basis of those applications. In that case the official respondents cannot arrest him and he is entitled to blanket bail, as prayed for in the petition. The question of grant of blanket anticipatory bail again came up before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savitri Aggarwal versus State of Maharasthra 2009 (3) RCR (Crl.) 794. It was held therein that no blanket order of bail should be passed and the Court which grants anticipatory bail must take care of to specify the offence or offences in respect of which alone the order will be effective. It is not mentioned in the petition as to for which offence the present petition has been filed. When such is the case, no such blanket order of giving seven days prior notice before arrest can be made. According to Section 438 of the Code, a person can apply to the High Court for a direction that he be released on bail in case he has reason to believe that he must be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. Neither it is specifically pleaded in the petition nor it can be made from the contents thereof that the petitioner has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of committing for a Crl. Misc. No. M- 18950 of 20009 [4] non-bailable offence. In para 16 he has only stated that seven days prior notice before his arrest be given if any case under cognizable offence is registered against him. All cognizable offences, as per 1st Schedule of the Code, are not non-bailable. There is no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. February 16, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE