High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/42550/2024allowed

Sanjay v. State Of Haryana

2024-11-13Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra6 pages

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

& -./0/

#! $$$

/ ,1.2& %

& ! &

& ! ()#

& !

* () +

15.02.2024 Industrial Area, Bhiwani, District Bhiwani 406, 420 and 506 of IPC, 1860 ,

()

#! ! &

#! * '

! !

# &!!

#! #

!# 0,111112*

& # & / ! #

' #

! #

/ #

41111112*

()

& &

6 .

1718,1,9 : %

& ! &

#! !

# ! #

# ! %

#! # 41111112*

/ 4111112*

; < =) !

# >111112*

!! !

#! &

) ! !

& #

# #%

! & #

& !!

& !

& # & ! 4.

Per contra, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has resisted the contentions as raised by the petitioner in terms of status report filed by respondent-State. It is submitted that the respondent-complainant had produced pen-drive and transcripts of telephonic conversation which took place between the petitioner and herself which is in the custody of the police which revealed that the petitioner had taken money from the complainant on the pretext of getting herself elected as Chairman of Municipal Council. It is further submitted that the account statement of the bank account of the petitioner has been collected during investigation and it has been revealed that he purchased jewelry from K.S. Jewellers from the money received from the complainant, on different dates.

It is also submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for recovery of jewelry purchased from K.S. Jewelers from the money belonging to the complainant as swell as for proper and thorough investigation of the matter. It is argued that the petitioner is involved in several other cases. He is a habitual offender and is also an absconder as two cases under Section 174-A of IPC have also been registered against him. There are chances of his absconding, if extended benefit of pre-arrest bail. It is also submitted that he has taken totally different pleas in the application filed by him before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge while seeking relief of anticipatory bail.

does not deserve to be allowed.

Vide order dated 30.08.2024, the petitioner was ordered to be released on interim bail subject to his joining investigation and furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer. He has joined investigation on 12.09.2024. The petitioner has admittedly issued two cheques for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- each in favour of the complainant which have been dishonored and it is also not in dispute that complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act') as filed by the complainant are pending against the present petitioner. It is a debatable question as to whether, there was an inducement on the part of the petitioner against the complainant to deliver the aforementioned amount for the purpose of getting her appointed as a Chairman or it was given for the purpose of investment.

It is only on the basis of thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that it can be determined as to whether, the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC are attracted in this case or not? It is also to be taken into consideration that the offence under Section 406 of IPC is antithesis to the offence under Section 420 of IPC. The well settled proposition of law is that criminal proceedings are not for realization of the disputed dues. Though no doubt it is open for a Court to grant or refuse prayer for grant of anticipatory bail depending on the facts and circumstances of a particular case, however, the Court is simultaneously not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant and that to without any trial.

! , 'Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 AIR (SC) 3484', "# $%

&' ( ) (

* +,

- .

/ "0 12

0 ( 3) *

,4 !. ./. Moreso, criminal complaints under Section 138 of NI Act are already pending against the petitioner. He would suffer consequences, if offence under Section 138 of NI Act is proved against him. In 'G.Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P., (2001) 1 RCR (Criminal) 707', the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in such case that there was no occasion for the complainant to prosecute the accused under Section 406 and 420 of IPC, as it was abuse of process of law. The complainant has already filed complaints under NI Act and if at all the offences alleged against the petitioner are proved resulting into his conviction, he would be bound to suffer penal consequences.

A transcript of the conversation alleged to have been recorded between the complainant and the petitioner has been shown to this court which suggests that the complainant had given money to the petitioner. However, neither the same can be taken into consideration at this stage for the purpose of deciding this application nor any other inference can be drawn from the same at this stage. In such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, no purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order dated 30.08.2024, whereby he was extended interim bail is made absolute, subject to the compliance of the f !!

* ?

3 &

)

@ !!

!#'

@ !!

! ! & ! > )

!- !!& #

! 8.

& !!

/ 5

' ( )* +,