Crl.M.No.M-7100 of 2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.M-7100 of 2009 (O&M). Decided on: February 01, 2010. Rishi Ahuja .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Shubra Singh, DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr.Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the complainant-respondent. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner seeks concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Dhiraj Shukla Accountant of M/s Captains Company.Com (P) Limited owned by Mr.Sonny Grewal, alleging that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the complainant to get the interiors of the office of the complainant done and that it was mutually agreed that the standard . . . 1 Crl.M.No.M-7100 of 2009 (O&M) of the material to be used would be as per the complainant's choice and the labour will be that of the petitioner. The work was to be commenced from 13.04.2008 and was to be finished within three months. The complainant had been paid a sum of Rs.5 lacs in advance by cross cheque. Subsequently, also the money was being paid to the complainant in good faith expecting that the petitioner was able to complete the project in time to the satisfaction of the complainants. The petitioner did not complete the work within the agreed period causing inconvenience to the complainant. The project allegedly exaggerated the estimated cost. The complainant had made payments of Rs.2 lacs on 17.10.2008, Rs.3 lacs on 21.10.2008 vide cheques and the petitioner had assured the completion of the work by 21.12.2008. On demand of more money by the petitioner, the complainant required the accused to submit all the copies and relevant bills/invoices regarding the building material etc. The accused had produced certain bills/invoices out of which many bills were fake and forged. On further scrutiny of the account, number of diversions were detected like measurement shown by the petitioner was inaccurate not in consistence with the work done on the site; some bills/invoices produced were forged and altered; the petitioner had added VAT in account sheet; and certain huge payments were mentioned which were illogical and unbelievable. As the petitioner shown fake amount just to grab the huge amount of money from complainant in the name of interior . . . 2 Crl.M.No.M-7100 of 2009 (O&M) work, he had cheated the complainant. Certain bills like Bill No.1079 of Mishra Glass Furniture, were found to be forged. The exaggerated price had been claimed with dishonest and mala fide intentions. Genuine equipment had not been installed. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case by the complainant as the petitioner had demanded the money due to him by issuing a notice to Mr.Sonny Grewal as per the agreement that the complainant would give profit margin of 20 per cent to the petitioner on the cost incurred on the project after completion of the same. Therefore, he did not charge any money for his services or consultancy, design and supervision of the project. He claims that it was the petitioner who had been cheated by the complainant- company. It is claimed that most of the work has been completed but in order to avoid the payment of money to the petitioner, he has been falsely implicated in the case. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondent and going through the entire police file, it is apparent that there is no written agreement between the petitioner and the complainant. Both the parties are claiming that the terms of the contract were oral. Prima facie, claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to 20 per cent of the profit margin on total cost is not believable in absence of any agreement having been placed on record. At the same time, no agreement has been placed on record by the complainant party. It appears that there has been a dispute . . . 3 Crl.M.No.M-7100 of 2009 (O&M) regarding the assessment given to the petitioner. Prima facie the petitioner has not completed the work despite having received money in advance. It is apparent that he, when asked to justify the amounts spent, has put forth fabricated and exaggerated bills. It is a case of breach of promise by the petitioner for which the complainant is entitled for damages. The petitioner certainly has not been able to explain the utilization of the money handed over to him for completion of interiors, but the terms of the agreement being uncertain; the petitioner having joined investigation; prima facie, it appears to be a case of civil liability. The complainant, no doubt, is entitled to seek recovery of the money given by him to the petitioner, after adjusting the remuneration for the work done by the petitioner for him, as per the terms of their agreement which seems to be uncertain and oral. In view of the above circumstances, when the complainant can recover the money from the petitioner after requiring the rendition of account from him, it will be a moot point during trial, whether it was the petitioner who persuaded the complainant to part with money or he had mis-utilized the money entrusted to him. The mode and manner in which the money was to be spent has to be established during trial. Whether there has been any violation can be determined by the civil Court or by the trial Court during course of criminal trial. The petition is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail subject to the . . . 4 Crl.M.No.M-7100 of 2009 (O&M) following conditions: - i) That the petitioner will join the investigation as and when required by the police; ii) That the Petitioner will not leave India without permission of the Court and would surrender his passport with the trial Court at the time of presentation of challan; iii) That the petitioner will be required to furnish fresh bail bonds in case Investigating Agency opts to present challan against him; and iv) That the petitioner will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation, in any manner. Anything said in the present case will not prejudice the rights inter se the parties. Police file be returned. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE February 01, 2010. rka . . . 5