High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/55771/2022dismissed

Jaswinderpal Singh Riar v. The State Of Punjab

2023-04-25Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.04.2023

....Petitioner

Versus

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :

Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chandan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

!"# $ for respondent No.1/State.

Mr. Tarunveer Vashisht, Advocate for respondent No.2.

HARSH BUNGER, J. (Oral)

%"% & '

()% &'

!"% %*"

+,- ( &% .% ( ./"

)

*%!% '%%0"1

$ ) "

* '%

23+ % 22342322 %1'%% !"% %*"'

+35

" +23 ( &% " "

) .%

)*% "

& '*

2 %() &%

$6%7'

* '%

%1'%% "

&% */ ) " ( %'

"%" 27

#"%

! 8&*& '

"9!% "

" &% ())8"1 $'%6 "'

8%% / % :7

! "

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

-2- ,' '(&

''-%%)* '.&%&%%)*

/ '&%((%'( %(%-(%'( +

0 / # 1'((-& 0

0 2'(&%%)* 3 0 !

'.%2(%'.

4 ,'

'(& 5 ,, 0

0 " !

'.&%%%%)* %-'%(%(' 0 %%%'(( (&%%%%)* '6%7(%(' 8 9 1%%%'(- ,%%%%%)* %''%(%(' 8 9 1%%%'(. ,%%%%%)* %'''(%(' :#;9 < 8

8 %%%'(( '6%7(%(' (&%%%%)*

'(%%%%%)* / 3

8 '((-& %(%-(%'(= 3.

The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, which was

-,- dismissed on 23.09.2022; accordingly, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

At the time of hearing of this petition on 01.12.2022, the contention of learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner was recorded to the effect that the petitioner is ready and willing to settle the dispute amicably with respondent No.2 and to show his bona fide he would bring a demand draft of Rs.2,00,000/- on the next date of hearing i.e. 10.01.2023.

On 10.01.2023, as against the statement made by learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that he would bring a demand draft of Rs.2,00,000/- as recorded in the order dated 01.12.2022, the petitioner brought a demand draft of only Rs.1,50,000/-. The said demand draft was accordingly handed over to the learned counsel for respondent No.2. On the same day, it was also submitted by learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner shall pay another sum of Rs.3,50,000/- on the next date of hearing and the approximate balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- shall be amicably settled between the parties, accordingly, considering the statement of learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the arrest of the petitioner was stayed and the matter was adjourned to 13.02.2023.

On 13.02.2023, the following order was passed:- $

'%%'(%(-

-&%%%%)*/ 0

(&%%%%)*

8 7%%%%%)*

-&%%%%)* '&%-(%(-

-+- -&%%%%)* '7%.(%(- 0

1() $

1()

'&%%%%)* >

? '%%%%%)* 1%%%%&.

> 1() ?

< 8

1() 9

: 0

1()

1%%%%&. '%%%%%)* 0 1() 9

'%%%%%)*

1() / @ 1()

1%%%%&. 9

$ ('%((%(- " '%%%%%)

1() 9

/ = 7.

In terms of the order dated 21.02.2023, Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to respondent No.2/complainant by way of cheque bearing No.000054 and accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 15.03.2023 for the payment of first installment amounting to Rs.3,50,000/-.

On 15.03.2023, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner had brought two cheques bearing No.000138 dated 31.03.2023 for an amount of

-;- Rs.1,50,000/- (which was a post dated cheque, although, the payment was to be made on that very day) and another cheque bearing No.000139 dated 16.03.2023 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The said cheques were handed over to respondent No.2/complainant and the matter was adjourned to 17.04.2023 for the payment of the next installment. 9.

That on 17.04.2023, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner brought two more cheques bearing No.000140 amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank and another cheque bearing No.000141 amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of respondent No.2-complainant. T&%

%"% & '

& "% 6% &% 1"

) *&%9!% $% "1 333+3

/!""1

'2 33 333<7 %'

"%" 27/

#"%

"&% *&%9!% $% "1 333+

/!""1 ' ;3 333<7 '

%/% $% 16%"

$ &%

%"% %'

"%" 2

(% &% ()"1 ( &% 9!

'&"1

**"1) &% / % '

#!"% 2+3+232,

3 "

2+3+232, &%

%"% '!1& '&

**// "

*/ ) 8& &% % % 43+232,

**"1) &% / % '

#!"% 2;3+232, % )% "% *!"'%)

% "1 ( %'

"%" 27 */ ) "

" & '

"(/% &% .! & &% % )% *&%9!% $% "1 333+3

/!""1

'2 33 333<7 8&*& '

& nded over to respondent No.2-complainant on 17.04.2023 has been dishonoured with the remarks "account blocked".

12.

In terms of the order dated 17.04.2023, the petitioner was to pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, after the filing of the quashing petition, which already stands filed by the petitioner i.e. CRM-M-19859-2023. However, today, l% "% *!"'%)

% "1 ( &%

%"% & '

'!$/% & &%

%"% & '

" $!1& &% '

/!" ( ' ;3 333<7

" &% ' %

-5- & &% & '

") ' 33 333<7 ((%

" '!1& ( '/% /% /% , "

&% &% & " )% "% *!"'%) ( %'

"%" 2 & '

$#%*% 1 " ( /% /% &%

%"% $ '!$/"1 &

%"% & '

" &"!% &% '%)%/%" 8&*& '

$%8%%"

&%/

" "

% )% ** '"

&% "!)1%"*% '

1 "%

% "% *!"'%) ( %'

"%" 2 (!&% '!$/'

%"% '

"%""

)) %) "1 &% / %

" '

* !'"1 !"!% & ''/%" &% */ ) "

"<%'

"%" 27

#"%

Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the present petition has been made.

14.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book, with their able assistance.

15.

As per the FIR, the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell with respondent No.2/complainant-Rajinder Kaur on 05.12.2011, after accepting Rs.5 lacs in respect of one plot No.61, for total amount of Rs.14,50,500/- and the target date for sale deed was fixed for 15.02.2012. It appears that on 02.03.2012, the petitioner executed a sale deed No.12235 in favour of respondent No.2/complainant-Rajinder Kaur, after receiving the balance amount. However, when the complainant filed an application before the Tehsildar, Kharar for mutation, then it was revealed that there was no land in the concerned Khasra Nos. in the name of the petitioner. It appears that thereafter on 14.09.2014, the petitioner got entered into another agreement to sell with his other share holder-Satinder Singh, owner of GRD Infratech, in lieu of the above-said plot No.

61, which suggested that another plot No.66 will be given to respondent No.2-complainant. However, even the said plot was not given.

-4amount of Rs.14,50,000/-. However, even the said compromise was not adhered to. Further, from the perusal of previous orders passed by this Court in the case in hand, it is manifest that various opportunities were afforded to the petitioner to re-pay the amount to the complainant; however, despite undertaking that the payment would be made, the petitioner had apparently failed to abide by the schedule of payment. Rather, one of the cheques i.e. Cheque no.000140, amounting to Rs.2 lacs, which was handed over to respondent No.2-complainant in the Court on 17.04.2023 and finds mention in that very order, has been dishonoured with the remarks "account blocked".

16.

The afore-said conduct of the petitioner is not above board and hence, I do not deem it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to him. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. 25.04.2023 (HARSH BUNGER) Amandeep/gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No