Criminal Misc. No. M-32458 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-32458 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.7.2009 Upinder Singh .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ritu Punj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate for the complainant. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 289 dated 29.10.2008, under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Butana, District Karnal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner. The entire dealings between the parties had taken place in Dubai. The cheques were issued in Dubai and dishonoured there. For any offence on account of dishonour of cheque, offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code cannot possibly be made out. The petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation. He further submitted that the offence having been committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the country, in terms of Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prior permission of the Central Government was required to enquire into the complaint and prosecute the petitioner in India. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the case is not simplicitor of issuance and dishonour of cheques. In fact, the petitioner is part of a gang, who were cheating lot of people. In the present case also, cheques worth AED 3,471,247 (UAE Dirhams) were issued by the petitioner, which were dishonoured and immediately the petitioner absconded from Dubai. He further submitted that prior permission for investigation is not required as the Criminal Misc. No. M-32458 of 2008 [2] entire offence has not been committed outside India. It is a chain of events, where the material had been received in Mumbai and Delhi and custodial interrogation is always better in quality, considering the seriousness of allegations against the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the seriousness of allegations against the petitioner, without opining on the merits of the controversy, least the same effects the case of either of the parties, I feel that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail, as his custodial interrogation will certainly be required for investigating the offence committed by the petitioner and also as to whether he is a part of the gang who were cheating the people. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 27.7.2009 mk