IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-8323 of 2011 Date of decision: 29.3.2011 Harvinder Kaur and another …. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent Present: Mr. S.L. Chander Shekhar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.C. Berry, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the complainant. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them on 27.2.2011 for the offence punishable under Section 420 Indian Penal Code (“ IPC” – for short). The FIR in the case has been registered on the basis of an application submitted by Sukhdial Singh Bal of Bal Gas Service, Bath Road, Tarn Taran- complainant. According to the complainant, the petitioners came to his gas agency and in the presence of his friend Baljinder Singh son of Hardial Singh persuaded him (complainant) to pay a sum of `5,80,000/- for an agreement relating to sale of property. The amount was to be paid to the owner of property and the property was to be transferred in the name of the complainant. The complainant paid the said amount of `5,80,000/- in cash to Harvinder Kaur (petitioner No.1) who issued a cheque in token of receipt of the CRM No. M-8323 of 2011 [2] said payment, which was to be a guarantee of the transaction as had been agreed. Manish Sharma @ Prince (petitioner No.2) was present during the finalization of the deal. He counted and handed over the amount to petitioner No.1. Later on, the complainant came to know that the property which was to be transferred in his name, was transferred by petitioner No.1 on her name. In this manner, both the petitioners had cheated the complainant. The complainant asked the petitioners about this and they said to forward the cheque which was given as guarantee for encashment. The cheque which was given as guarantee on presentation was dishonoured by the bank of the petitioners with the remarks “insufficient funds”. The complainant had been trying to get his money back, but the same was not returned. Rather he was threatened with dire consequences. FIRs of six other cases in which the petitioners are involved have been mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a civil suit (Annexure P1) for permanent injunction has been filed by the petitioners against the complainant Sukhdial Singh Bal for restraining him from interfering in the personal and private life, affairs and dignity of the petitioners and from coercing and harassing petitioner No.1 to develop illicit relations with him forcibly and illegally or with the help of Police. Besides, it is submitted that a false story had been concocted by the complainant and in fact the petitioners alongwith one Veera Sharma had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) seeking a direction to protect the life, liberty and property of the petitioners from Malwinder Singh Sidhu, Superintendent of Police (Detective), District Tarn Taran, Baljinder Singh, Traffic Incharge City, Tarn CRM No. M-8323 of 2011 [3] Taran, Satnam Singh, Hawaldar, Police Station City Tarn Taran, Gurvinder Singh Gill, SHO Incharge, Police Station City Tarn Taran and Sukhdial Singh Bal (complainant), Proprietor/partner of M/s Bal Gas Agency, Bath Road, Tarn Taran. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 is a widow living with her 2 minor children in the same locality of petitioner No.2 and they both are neighbours. Sometime back, petitioners went to the shop of the complainant who is running a gas agency. The petitioners requested him to issue a new connection and submitted all the necessary documents. The complainant assured petitioner No.1 that a new LPG connection would be issued to her. On the next day, the petitioners again visited the office of the complainant and petitioner No.1 was called by the complainant in his cabin where the complainant used objectionable language which showed his ill-intentions and he wanted to develop illicit relations with petitioner No.1. Thereafter, on the refusal of petitioner No.1, the complainant threatened the petitioners to implicate them in some false case. Petitioner No.1 then filed CRM No. M-31147 of 2010 in this Court under Section 482 CrPC for directing this Court to protect the life, liberty and property of the petitioners from respondents No.5 to 8 in the said petition. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of order dated 25.10.2010 (Annexure P2). It is submitted that in case a cheque of `5,80,000/- has been dishonoured, the remedy of the complainant is to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and a criminal prosecution is not maintainable. Learned State counsel has submitted that one FIR No.22 dated 29.1.2011 for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC stands registered against petitioner No.1 at Police CRM No. M-8323 of 2011 [4] Station City Tarn Taran. Besides, it is submitted that petitioner No.1 had surreptitiously taken an amount of `5,80,000/- from the complainant on the pretext of getting property transferred in his name. Petitioner No.1, however, got the property transferred in her own name and a cheque for an amount of `5,80,000/- which was given to the complainant as guarantee has also been dishonoured. It is submitted that by giving a cheque with a view to get it dishonoured does not, in any manner, diminish the offence of cheating. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioners for getting a gas conncetion had gone to the gas agency of the complainant and persuaded him to purchase property worth `5,80,000/-. The complainant gave `5,80,000/- in cash to petitioner No.1 and the petitioners gave a cheque as a guarantee for the said amount to the complainant. The cheque on presentation had, however, been dishonoured and returned with the remarks “insufficient funds”. The petitioners have taken the money from the complainant in a surreptitious manner. One FIR No.22 dated 29.1.2011 for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC also stands registered against Harvinder Kaur (petitioner No.1). Besides, the involvement of the petitioners in other cases has been alleged in the FIR. A reading of the order dated 11.3.2011 (Annexure P3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran shows that on perusal of the record, it was revealed that about six such FIRs of cheating were registered against the petitioners. The mere fact that the cheque given by petitioner No.1 to the complainant has been dishonoured on presentation would not in the facts and circumstances diminish or tone down the offence of cheating and only make out a case under Section CRM No. M-8323 of 2011 [5] 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is a case where an amount of `5,80,000/- is alleged to have been stealthily taken, which would require to be gone into and investigated. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The Crl. Misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (S.S. SARON) March 29, 2011 JUDGE amit