Crl. Misc. No. M-5138 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-5138 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: March 18, 2010 Suresh Kumar Jain ...Petitioner Versus Jagdish and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. AS Kalra, Advocate with Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ms. Shalini Atri, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.2. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. This petition under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by Suresh Kumar Jain, for grant of anticipatory bail in Complaint No. 536/2007 dated 25.10.2007 titled Jagdish Chander versus Satpal Jain under Section 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He has contended therein that there was a dispute between Haryana State Cooperative Supply Markfed Ltd. of which he was the District Manager and M/s Vishnu Co. Society Labour and Construction Ltd. Cheeka (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'), of which the complainant/respondent No. 1 was the President, regarding labour charges Crl. Misc. No. M-5138 of 2010 for the transportation and lifting of the paddy from different grain markets. As per the directions of the District Food and Supply Controllers, the petitioner issued notices to the various rice millers to return payment made in the previous year for the transportation of the paddy within the range of 8 kms. from the purchase centre. No bill was submitted by the complainant on behalf of the Society for transportation charges and as such he was not entitled to any such amount. A writ petition was filed before this Court bearing CWP No. 17338 of 2006 by the said Society seeking direction to the Markfed for providing work of labour and cartage for paddy as per the agreement between the parties and the same was disposed of vide order dated 2.11.2006 (Annexure P/4) with the observations that the remedy available to the petitioner was either to seek arbitration under Clause 5 of the agreement dated 26.3.2006 or to file a civil suit for breach of the contract. Instead of going for the arbitration, the Society filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction against the Markfed and its officers. The above said complaint has been filed by the complainant as a result of frustration in order to harass, insult, humiliate and for putting pressure on the petitioner. No such incident dated 27.8.2007 ever occurred in his office, as alleged in the complaint. Even his name has been wrongly mentioned as Satpal Jain. According to the complainant, the incident took place on 27.8.2007 at about 3.30 PM in which he was insulted and humiliated in the name of his caste in the presence of the others. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the plaint with this petition as Annexure P/5, which has been filed by the Society against the Markfed. A perusal thereof shows that the suit was filed on 18.9.2007 and it was pleaded in paragraph 12 of the plaint that after submitting the bill, the complainant again went to the office of the Crl. Misc. No. M-5138 of 2010 defendant and requested for the payment, but the defendant postponed the matter intentionally on one pretext or the other and finally refused to make the payment on 4.9.2007. Had any such incident, as mentioned in the complaint, taken place the complainant must have pleaded so in the plaint. In fact, falsity in the complaint is reflected from his own pleadings. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that Section 18 of the Act is a bar for the grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner has been summoned in the complaint and keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maninder Kaur and others v. Teja Singh 2000 (4) All Indian Criminal Law Reporter 768, this petition is accepted. In case the petitioner surrenders before the trial court, he shall be admitted to bail to its satisfaction. The petition is disposed of accordingly. March 18, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE