Criminal Misc. No .M-36112 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No .M-36112 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.12.2011 Pardeep Kumar ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Rawat, AAG, Punjab. *** L.N. MITTAL, J. (Oral). Accused Pardeep Kumar has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.91 dated 30.06.2010 under Sections 420, 406, 409, 120- B IPC registered at Police Station Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to teh prosecution version, petitioner's rice mill was entrusted 26210.45 quintal Paddy Crop during the season 2008-09 and was required to deliver 17561.00 quintal rice after milling the paddy but delivered 14289.48 quintal rice only and misappropriated 3271.52 quintal rice worth Rs.60,87,813/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is arbitration clause in the agreement but the dispute has not been Criminal Misc. No .M-36112 of 2011 -2- referred to arbitration. However, this contention has no bearing on the instant case because arbitration clause in the agreement can settle only civil liability and not criminal liability. The petitioner has allegedly misappropriated rice worth over Rs. 6 million, for which both civil and criminal liability may arise. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that according to policy for the year 2009-10, the petitioner gave three post dated cheques worth Rs.17,54,352/- each and the same were dishonoured but no complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed and therefore, no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Veer Parkash Sharma Versus Anil Kumar Agarwal, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 960. This contention is also not tenable. The case of Veer Parkash Sharma (Supra) has no applicability. That was a simple case of purchase of goods and dishonour of cheques given for price of the goods. The instant case, however, is of criminal misappropriation of rice worth over Rs.6 Million. Issuance of cheques was subsequent act which is to be dealt with separately. However, offence relating to alleged misappropriation had already been committed. Issuance of cheques and dishonouring thereof would rather prima facie depict misappropriation by the petitioner. In view of the serious allegations against the petitioner including criminal misappropriation of rice worth over Rs. 6 million, the question of extending concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner does not arise. Dismissed without meaning to express opinion on merits of the case. Criminal Misc. No .M-36112 of 2011 -3- December 19, 2011 (L.N. MITTAL) harjeet JUDGE