Crl.Misc.No.16494-M of 2008 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.16494-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 21.7.2008. Mukesh Kumar Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present:- Mr.Bijender Dhankar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.I.P.S.Sidhu, Sr.DAG Punjab. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case registered vide FIR No.222 dated 21.5.2008, under Sections 452, 341, 506, 34, 420 IPC with P.S. Sadar, Patiala, District Patiala. Briefly, the allegations of the prosecution are that the petitioner used to purchase mobile phones from the complainant- Company. He gave two cheques of Rs.50 lacs each on 7.4.2004 by putting dates as 12.12.2007 but later on when the cheques were presented before the Bank, the same were bounced. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is the sole proprietor of M/s Yamini Enterprises who had Crl.Misc.No.16494-M of 2008 -2 - business dealings with the complainant Company through its character H.S.Geordia, who had obtained two blank signed cheques from him each of Rs.50 lacs in Hong Kong on 24.7.2003 towards security to ensure the payment of transactions with an oral understanding that these cheques will not be encashed and shall be returned in original after the receipt of payment of business transaction. It is further contended that although, entire due payment of the complainant Company has been made in August 2004 and the complainant was under legal obligation to return the aforesaid two blank signed cheques of Rs.50 lacs each but in furtherance of conspiracy, H.S.Geordia with Gurpreet Singh presented these cheques which were bounced. It is further contended that the complainant has already filed a petition under Section 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act through Gurpreet Singh on 12.4.2008 and in order to harass the petitioner, present FIR has been registered by Gurpreet Singh who is claiming himself to be the authorized representative of M/s Micro Trend Limited. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that after filing of petition under Section 138 of N.I. Act, FIR under Section 420 IPC cannot be lodged and has relied upon Harinder Pal Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 534. After hearing the counsel for the parties, without Crl.Misc.No.16494-M of 2008 -3 - expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the Arresting/Investigating officer shall release the petitioner on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to his satisfaction. He shall further abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. He shall also join investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 21.7.2008. Judge Meenu