Crl.M.No.M-24467 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.M-24467 of 2010 Date of decision:August 27, 2010. SK Sood and another ` ..............................Petitioners v State of Haryana ................................Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.Amaninder Preet,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.MS Sindhu,Addl.AG Haryana for respondent- State of Haryana, assisted by Mr.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the complainant JASWANT SINGH,J. Prayer under Section 438 Cr.PC is for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners-Commission Agents, engaged in the business of sale and purchase of second hand vehicles under the name and style of M/s Balaji Car Point, Chandigarh- in case FIR No. 245 dated 27.5.2009 under Sections 406,420 IPC, PS Sector 5, Panchkula. As per allegations complainant-Radhey Soni on 13.2.2008 approached the petitiones for sale of his Mahindra Logan car bearing registration no. HR-70-B-7172, financed by HDFC Bank. The value of the said Mahindra Logan car was fixed at Rs.5,50,000/-. Since the complainant was interested for exchange of his Mohindra Logan car Crl.M.No.M-24467 of 2010 2 with one Scorpio bearing registration no.HR-56-6343, the value of which was Rs.6,95,000/-, shown by petitioner no.1, the deal was struck between the parties and accordingly complainant-Radhey Soni, allegedly paid the balance sum of Rs.1,45,000/- in cash to the petitioners and delivery of vehicles was exchanged/taken. Complainant is alleged to have spend another sum of Rs.40,000/- on the repairs of said Scorpio car. It is further alleged in the FIR that 10 days after the said deal the petitioner came to know that the said Scorpio car was a financed vehicle, which fact was not mentioned in the registration certificate of the said vehicle. On complainant having brought this fact to the notice of the petitioners, latter sent 2-3 persons to the complainant and took back the said vehicle-Scorpio from his custody saying that they would check it up whether the said vehicle was financed or not. The complainant was also told that his Mohindra Logan car had already been sold, the sale proceeds of which will be deposited with the bank-since it was financed by HDFC Bank- and the remaining amount will be paid to the him. It is alleged by the complainant in the FIR that neither he has been paid the remaining amount nor his Mahindra Logan Car has been returned to him, and as such a fraud has been committed with him by the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that the alleged exchange of vehicles did not materalise and rather the Mahindra Logan belonging to the complainant was sold to one Sarad Chander of Damtal for a total consideration of Rs.5.50 lacs, out of which the complainant was paid Crl.M.No.M-24467 of 2010 3 Rs.2 lac through cheque drawn on ICICI Bank and at that time complainant had promised to clear the outstanding loan against the said car-Mohindra Logan to the HDFC Bank, from which it was financed. It is further alleged by the petitioners that thereafter they approached the complainant with balance amount a number of times and asked him to get NOC from HDFC Bank in respect of his Mohindra Logan car, but the complainant used to make excuses and was not getting the requisite NOC. It is alleged by the petitioners that as on date a sum of Rs.4,90,375/- is outstanding against the Mohindra Logan car of the complainant as he did not deposit Rs.2 lac received from the petitioners at the time of sale of his said car. The petitioners have also placed on record a compromise (P2) dated nil arrived at between them and the complainant before SHO PS Panchkula according to which the petitioners had to pay Rs.3 lac through cheque to the complainant by 1.6.2009 and the balance amount of Rs.1.60 was to be paid in cash on 1.6.2009 failing which the petitioners were liable to be proceeded against in accordance with law. Before approaching this Court, the petitioners have moved a bail application before the Court of Sessions at Panchkula and learned Sessions Judge,Panchkula vide order dated 25.6.2009 (P3) had granted them anticipatory bail for a period of one month with the direction that in the meantime the petitioners will seek regular bail from the Court concerned. From a perusal of the paper book it appears that in the Crl.M.No.M-24467 of 2010 4 meantime petitioners filed Crl.M.No.M-18019 of 2009, under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking quashing of the FIR. While issuing notice of motion in that petition a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 8.7.2009, stayed the further proceedings before the trial court and directed the petitioners to bring the amount in question on the next date of hearing. Since petitioners failed to comply with the said order dated 8.7.2009, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dealing with the said quashing petition, vide order dated 16.7.2010 (P5) modified the order dated 8.7.2009 directing that proceedings before the trial court shall continue, however, final order be not passed. The application for regular bail moved by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned CJM, Panchkula on the ground that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.7.2009 passed in Crl.M.No.M-18019 of 2009 had already stayed the proceedings. Thereafter, on 5.8.2010 petitioners moved an application before Sessions Judge, Panchkula seeking extension of time for seeking regular bail. The said application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panchkula vide order dated 13.8.2010 (P4) on the grounds that (i) petitioners had moved the application seeking extension of time for seeking regular bail on 5.8.2010, whereas they were required to move the same on or before 25.7.2009, as stipulated in the order dated 25.6.2009 passed by Sessions Judge Panchkula while granting them anticipatory bail; and (ii) the petitioners were ready to pay an amount of Rs.1.90 lac to the complainant but according to Crl.M.No.M-24467 of 2010 5 complainant the petitioners are required to pay Rs.3.10 lac. In the present petition, on 26.8.2010 at the time of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner had prayed for time to seek instructions regarding payment of outstanding amount to complainant. Today, at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners states at the Bar that petitioners owe nothing to the complainant and that they have been falsely implicated. In view of the petitioners shifting their stand time and again regarding the outstanding amount payable to the complainant, in my opinion, for a thorough and proper investigation into the allegations made against them, custodial interrogation of petitioners is necessary. Accordingly, no case for grant of concession of anticipatory bail is made out. Dismissed. August 27, 2010. (JASWANT SINGH) joshi JUDGE