Narender @ Monu v. State Of Haryana

₹

It is submitted that the true facts are that, at the request of the complainant, the petitioner invested a sum of ₹1 crore in his business. Out of the said amount, ₹45 lakhs were transferred through various banking transactions, while the remaining amount was paid in cash. However, the business did not proceed as expected, and disputes arose due to non-generation of profits. Learned counsel submits that, upon the petitioner's insistence, the complainant refunded a partial amount of ₹32 lakhs through bank transfers on different dates, but failed to refund the remaining balance of ₹68 lakhs. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the CM Window seeking legal action against the complainant.

It is only thereafter that the present false FIR has been lodged, with the sole intention of exerting pressure upon the petitioner to withdraw the complaint filed against the complainant. It is further submitted that the offence of attempt to extortion is not made out in the present case, as the dispute pertains solely to a financial disagreement between the parties. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has neither made any call to the complainant, nor is the mobile number from which the alleged calls were made registered in the name of the petitioner.

ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon by the investigating agency. Hence, he prays that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

4.

Learned counsel for the State has filed the status report and has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of bail. Referring to the status report, learned State counsel submits that the offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature and he is specifically named in the FIR. It is contended that the petitioner has played an active role in the commission of the alleged crime, and the allegations against him are specific and grave. It is further submitted that the petitioner attempted to extort a sum of ₹1 crore from the complainant on the pretext of having secured liquor vend contracts by making intimidating calls to the complainant through co-accused Naksh (nephew of petitioner) and Jaggu, while projecting themselves as associates of a dreaded gangster. To lend force to his argument he has relied upon Annexure R-6 i.

e. transcript of phone calls between complainant and co-accused, wherein the coaccused Naksh has been demanding money at the behest of his uncle (present petitioner). Learned State counsel submits that during the course of investigation, verification of the mobile numbers from which the complainant received the alleged extortion calls was conducted and it transpired that one of the mobile numbers was registered in the name of one Sanjay, who happens to be the uncle of the petitioner.

accused who are still at large, to ascertain the complete chain of persons involved, the motive behind the demand of ₹1 Crore and the petitioner's association with individuals linked to the gangsters. In view of the above, learned State counsel prays that the present petition be dismissed. 5.

Learned Counsel for the complainant adopts the submissions made by the learned state counsel and submits that the petitioner is not a mere contributor but the main architect of the crime, and does not deserve any concession from this Court. Hence, he prays that the present petition be dismissed.

6.

Heard.

₹