COCP No.97 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.97 of 2008 Date of decision: 9.9.2009 Harjit Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Avtar Singh Walia ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S Bhullar, Advocate for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. As per the averments made in this petition, the respondent induced the petitioner to give money for sending him abroad and cheated him. The petitioner lodged FIR No.4 of 1996 against the respondent for cheating and forgery. The respondent filed Crl.M.No.10050-M of 1996 in this Court for grant of anticipatory bail and vide order dated 5.12.1996, he was granted anticipatory bail. The aforesaid application was disposed of vide order dated 25.4.1997 as under: “It is, therefore, ordered that in the event of arrest, investigating officer will call upon Avtar Singh Walia to furnish bail with personal bond of Rs.10,000/- together with surety bond of the said amount. He shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court. He shall join the investigation and make himself available to the Investigating Officer to dwell on the investigation of the case and when calls upon to do so. Avtar Singh Walia shall deposit Rs.2.5 lacs in the Court of Ilaqa COCP No.97 of 2008 2 Magistrate, Chandigarh within a fortnight, who shall keep the said amount in 'Fixed Deposit Receipt' in any scheduled bank which shall be renewed every year. Harjit Singh shall withdraw that amount only if he proves his entitlement to that amount whether before the Magistrate or the Civil Court. If at any state Harjit Singh is not found entitled to that amount in any appeal or revision etc. against the order of entitlement that might be passed in favour of Avtar Singh Walia, he (Harjit Singh) will refund the amount together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date when he withdraws the amount till he actually refunds that amount to Avtar Singh. This Criminal Misc. application is disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be given dasti.” The petitioner further averred that he filed a civil suit for recovery against the respondent to establish his claim to the amount of Rs.2.5 lacs deposited by the respondent in pursuance of the aforesaid order. The suit was partly decreed vide judgment and decree dated 28.8.2002. When appeals filed by both the parties were pending in the Court of District Judge, Chandigarh, the petitioner filed an application restraining the respondent from withdrawing the amount deposited by him. Reply was filed by the respondent wherefrom the petitioner came to know that the respondent had already withdrawn the entire amount and thus, the respondent is guilty of committing the contempt of this Court. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, reply was filed by the respondent wherein it has been submitted that vide order dated 23.9.2002 the respondent was discharged from the criminal COCP No.97 of 2008 3 case as it was well proved that he did not obtain the amount from the complainant for the purpose of sending him abroad and thus, the respondent was entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by him at the time of grant of anticipatory bail by this Court. The respondent also relied upon judgment dated 29.1.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh whereby appeal filed by him against the decree dated 28.8.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chandigarh was accepted and suit of the petitioner was dismissed in toto. The aforesaid facts mentioned in the affidavit of the respondent are not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner was also unable to point out whether any appeal has been carried out by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 29.1.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. Since the petitioner failed to prove his entitlement to the amount, the respondent was entitled to withdraw the amount in question. Thus, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. Rule discharged. September 9, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE