CRM No.M-30098 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-2.12.2010 Om Parkash @ Parkash @ Passa son of Ram Sarup ...Petitioner Versus Ram Chander and State of Haryana ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Aditya Sanghi Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Malik, A.A.G., Haryana for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) As per office report, respondent No.1 has refused to accept service and he has been served through affixation. Nemo appeared on his behalf despite service. 2. Petitioner Om Parkash @ Parkash @ Passa son of Ram Sarup, has directed the present petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a private complaint case instituted against him by complainant Ram Chander (respondent No.1), in which, he (petitioner) has been summoned to face the trial for the commission of offences punishable under sections 406 and 506 IPC and section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”) by the Magistrate, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC. 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. No body appeared to contest the instant petition on behalf of complainant-respondent No.1 despite service. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 5. What is not disputed here is that petitioner was stated to have CRM No.M-30098 of 2010 2 motivated the complainant to invest the money in Swarn Bhumi Forest (India) Limited and consequently, he deposited Rs.9600/- in this regard. According to the prosecution, when the scheme matured, the invested amount was not paid to the complainant by the petitioner despite repeated demands. Meaning thereby, the main dispute between the parties appears to be of civil nature. Under these circumstances, whether the offence punishable under section 3 (x) of the Act is attracted or not, will be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial of the complaint case by the trial court. 6. Not only that, the petitioner was directed to surrender/appear before the trial Court by this court by virtue of order dated 11.10.2010. In pursuance of order of this Court, the petitioner appeared and submitted the bail and surety bonds, which have already been accepted and attested by the trial Court, vide order dated 18.10.2010. 7. It is also not a matter of dispute that the Magistrate has already committed the case for trial to the Court of Special Judge, vide order dated 1.11.2010. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the interim order dated 11.10.2010 is hereby made absolute in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 2.12.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge