High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/37025/2017dismissed

Pardeep v. State Of Haryana

2017-10-06Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-37025 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 06, 2017 Pardeep

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Bijender Dhankar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.B.S.Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

Mr.H.S.Batth, Advocate for the complainant.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.358 dated 08.09.2017 under Section 408 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Sonepat, District Sonepat.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant appeared and contested the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that FIR was got registered by Jyoti Thukral, Insurance Manager, Jagmohan Automative Private Limited. As Vineet Gulati 2017.10.24 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-37025 of 2017 -2per the FIR, accused Pardeep is a collection agent in the Insurance Department of the Company and he collected `6,41,053/- from the customers but did not deposit the same with the Company and has misappropriated the amount.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has deposited the amount in question, upon which the Company has issued insurance policies to the customers.

Learned counsel for the complainant argued that to keep the confidence of the customers, the policies have been issued to them as they have paid the money but issuance of the policies does not show that the petitioner has not misappropriated the amount or has deposited the amount with the company.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. Money is still to be recovered from him. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

October 06, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2017.10.24 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh