Criminal Misc. -M No. 30011 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : January 12, 2009 Sanjay and another ....Petitioners versus Jagan ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal Present : Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for respondent Pritam Pal,J. (Oral) Petitioners Sanjay and Amit have brought this petition under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking anticipatory bail in complaint case titled as 'Jagan versus Soni Communications' in which they have been ordered to be summoned by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon vide order dated 30.4.2007 Annexure P/5 for facing trial for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC. Briefly stated the allegations against the petitioners are that on 15.2.2006 they had purchased 7 kanals 1 marla of land situated in District Gurgaon, worth Rs 46 lacs from respondent Jagan. At the time of sale of the aforesaid land, respondent who is complainant in this case before the trial court was entrusted with two cheques bearing Nos. 130361 and 130362 dated 15.2.2006 of Rs 23 lacs each in lieu of sale consideration. When Criminal Misc. -M No. 30011 of 2008 (O&M) -2- those two cheques were presented by the complainant for withdrawal of the amount, the same were dishonoured due to lack of sufficient funds. In this way, complainant-respondent Jagan who is a rustic illiterate person was cheated at the hands of the petitioners. Ultimately, on these aforesaid allegations a complaint case was filed before the Ilaqa Magistrate who after recording the preliminary evidence and obtaining the police report and going through the documents i.e. sale deed Ex. P1, photo copies of cheques dated 15.2.2006 Ex. P2 and P3 and notice dated 4.8.2006, Ex. P4 found prima facie case for summoning the petitioners for commission of offence punishable under the aforesaid sections vide order dated 30.4.2007, Annexure P/5. It is to add here that the complainant has also filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale deed on 5.8.2006. It is further evident that the summoning order in the aforesaid case was passed on 30.4.2007 but the petitioners had been evading their service and ultimately bailable warrants were issued against them. Thereupon, the petitioners had come up before this Court for seeking anticipatory bail in the month of November, 2008. It was on November 18, 2008 that the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in fact, the total amount of Rs 46 lacs of two bounced cheques was paid to the complainant-respondent vide receipt Annexure P/1 and so no case for commission of offence under which the petitioners have been summoned is made out. On this aforesaid plea raised on behalf of the petitioners, an interim relief was granted for admitting them to bail by the learned trial court. A perusal of the file shows that the petitioners appeared before the trial court only after their non-bailable warrants were issued on 8.1.2009. It was thereafter that the petitioners placed the copy of the order under which they were granted interim relief by this Court vide Criminal Misc. -M No. 30011 of 2008 (O&M) -3- order dated 18.11.2008 and thereupon they were admitted to interim bail by the trial court till 12.1.2009 in terms of the aforesaid order. Now the noticeable contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the entire amount of Rs 46 lacs of alleged bounced cheques had already been paid in cash to the complainant vide receipt Annexure P/1 and civil suit is pending between the parties, so no criminal case is made out, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. This contention has been rebutted by learned counsel for the respondent wherein it has been submitted that in fact, receipt Annexure P/1 relied upon by the petitioners is fake one. In fact, the complainant never received the aforesaid amount of Rs 46 lacs and that a big fraud has been played upon him who is a poor rustic illiterate person. Even otherwise it was also argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that in the given facts and circumstances of this case, it is not believable that petitioners would give such a heavy amount of Rs 46 lacs in cash to the complainant- respondent without taking back their bounced cheques from him (complainant). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid noticeable points of arguments raised on behalf of the parties and find that interim relief in this case was granted to the petitioners taking the receipt Annexure P/1 to be genuine but the same has been outrightly disputed and rejected by the respondent. This factum is also corroborated from the report of the police obtained under section 202 Cr.P.C. by the trial court, where he (complainant) had denied the execution of receipt Annexure P/1. Moreover, at this stage, it is not believable that the petitioners who are also Criminal Misc. -M No. 30011 of 2008 (O&M) -4- running a company would pay such a huge amount, that too in cash, to the complainant under his thumb impression without taking back their bounced cheques from the later. It is also now well settled that criminal proceedings as well as civil proceedings can run parallel in case both are made out against the perpetuator of the crime and as such one cannot escape from the liability of criminal proceedings simply on the ground of pendency of civil case against him. Moreover the provisions under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be invoked sparingly and in exceptional circumstances which are lacking in this case. Thus taking into account the gravity and seriousness of the offence, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail. Criminal Misc. is dismissed. ( Pritam Pal ) January 12, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'