IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-26586 of 2010 Date of decision : 12.10.2010 Sh. Sanjay Katiyar …. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ….. Respondents Present : Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** S.S. SARON, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted dasti notices in Court today. In terms of the report of the Process Server, Arvinder Pal Singh (respondent No.3) has received the notice; besides, he has received a copy of the notice on behalf of Inder Mohan (respondent No.2) and Smt. Devinder Kaur (respondent No.4). The dasti notices are taken on record. Accordingly, respondents No.2 to 4 stand served for today. Despite notices, none has put in appearance. Learned State counsel has submitted Photostat copy of the order dated 22.9.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad Crl. Misc. No. M-26586 of 2010 [2] whereby the three accused i.e. respondents No.2 to 4 who were served with the Court notices for 22.9.2010 did not appear before the learned Magistrate. In view of the said conduct of the said accused persons, their presence was ordered to be secured by issuing warrants of arrest against them without cancelling their bail. The order dated 22.9.2010 is taken on record. The present petition has been filed seeking cancellation of the pre-arrest bail granted to respondents No.2 to 4 vide order dated 17.3.2010 in Crl. Misc. No. M-22163 of 2009 in FIR No.166 dated 2.7.2009 registered at Police Station Sector-31, Faridabad for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Respondents No.2 to 4 filed Crl. Misc. No.M- 22163 of 2009 for grant of pre-arrest bail in the aforesaid case. The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre for amicably settling the dispute. It was admitted position between the petitioners and the complainant and it was agreed that Inder Mohan (respondent No.2) would pay the complainant Sanjay Katiyar (petitioner) an amount of `17 lacs. The amount of `1 lac had been paid by Inder Mohan (respondent No.2) to the petitioner Sanjay Katiyar. However, the parties could not resolve the duration for payment of Crl. Misc. No. M-26586 of 2010 [3] the balance amount of `16 lacs. In the proceedings that were held on 17.3.2010 it was agreed that Inder Mohan (respondent No.2) would pay the petitioner Sanjay Katiyar an amount of `10 lacs by 31.8.2010. The balance amount of `6 lacs was to be paid in the following manner i.e. `3 lacs by 31.3.2011 and `3 lacs by 31.12.2011 respectively. Inder Mohan (respondent No.2) was present in Court and had undertaken to stand to the agreed schedule. The petitioner Sanjay Katiyar had also agreed to the mode and duration of the payment. The dispute was between the partners and it was also agreed that respondents No.2 to 4 would file a petition seeking quashing of the FIR in the above terms and the petitioner Sanjay Katiyar would give his necessary consent and depose affidavit for facilitating the quashing of FIR. It was further agreed that the petitioner may file a petition seeking quashing of FIR. However, the actual FIR was to be quashed after receipt of due amount by the petitioner Sanjay Katiyar. In view of the said settlement that had been reached at, interim bail granted on 13.8.2009 was made absolute. At present the position is that respondents No.2 to 4 have not adhered to the schedule of making the payment and they have not paid `10 lacs which was to be paid by 31.8.2010 to the petitioner. Crl. Misc. No. M-26586 of 2010 [4] Therefore, cancellation of the bail that was granted is sought. Notice of motion was issued for today and despite service, respondents No.2 to 4 have not put in appearance. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the State submitted that it is in view of the bail granted to respondents No.2 to 4 vide order dated 17.3.2010 (Annexure P2) by this Court in CRM No. M-22163 of 2009 that the learned Magistrate in terms of order dated 22.9.2010, which has been taken on record, has not cancelled the same and the proceedings before the learned trial Magistrate are also affected. Therefore, respondents No.2 to 4 are also avoiding their appearance in the proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad in case FIR No.166 dated 2.7.2009 titled State v. Inder Mohan and others (respondents No.2 to 4). In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact that respondents No.2 to 4 have not put in appearance despite service of notice, it is evident that they are not wanting to contest the petition. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the bail granted by this Court vide order dated 17.3.2010 as also interim bail granted on 13.8.2009 are cancelled. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Crl. Misc. No. M-26586 of 2010 [5] Faridabad shall proceed against the accused (respondents No.2 to 4) in accordance with law. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE October 12, 2010 amit