Sanjeev Kumar Ahuja v. State Of Punjab And Another



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH


(O&M) Date of decision: 22.08.2022
 



...Petitioner

Versus

  

...Respondents

     
     

    


          




    
      ****     



 

!



        "   # $    %&'(')(' (    $
*$ +, - ,   
) (* +  $        

%&

$   

.  #/     

$ &''$"

 

#   / 

          01 2    

$       2 *3'4     $ 

       

           $     

  2          

$     


  $   $

     

  $2   $        5    #     $$ 

$$     $ In support of his case, he relies upon Vesa Holdings P. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors., 2015 (2) RCR (Criminal) 442.

Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, submit that the petitioner and the complainant are the neighbourer and on the asking of the petitioner and his mother, the complainant had invested Rs.11 lakh in the company of the petitioner; that the complainant had arranged the said amount by selling her two plots and that the cheques issued by the petitioner to the complainant in lieu of repayment of the amount, also got bounced. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the paper-book.

Perusal of the facts on record would reveal that on 02.12.2019, the complainant invested Rs.5 lakh in the finance company of the petitioner @ 2% interest as per the settlement, after selling her two plots and thereafter, the complainant again invested Rs.6 lakh in the company, but the petitioner, who is running a finance company, has not return the money as promised and thus, the petitioner does not deny the investment of the amount of Rs. 11 lakh by the complainant. Having received the amount and there being no justification for the dishonour of the cheques issued for repayment of the said amount, it cannot be said that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to cause a wrongful loss to the complainant.

  The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of CBI Vs. Anil Sharma, reported in 1994(4) RCR (Criminal) 268 has held as under:-      

 

    !"  # 

#$ %#   & #$#'$(  $#   # &  %#

)*+  +$$ + ##' #$     ,    - " # #  $.*   * ' %# 

) )       

#'##% % #(

 $ # ##$  ##$* +   + $ #'  #$ / 

 

 %# *+ $$  

))  .+  #

   +$$ )# 

$# (# )# #$  %  *  %#-0(*%#

 #*+ $ #  #$6 Considering the very nature of the allegations contained in the FIR, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed.

    



 

#%#$/%   8 " 9  :8     $9 :8