The nature of the dispute and the previous observation by the Sessions Court regarding civil liability influenced the court's decision to grant anticipatory bail.

P.K. Bhasin, J;—

The petitioner–accused seeks anticipatory bail in a case under Sections 420/468/471/511 IPC registered against him vide FIR No.257/2007 pursuant to the directions given to the police by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini on 20.04.2007 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. when the complainant Umesh Chander Vij had filed a criminal complaint dated 22.02.2007(being CC No.320/1/2007) after the police had failed to register the FIR on his complaint. The allegations against the petitioner were that the complainant had business dealings with the petitioner and his Firms and with the bad intentions of cheating the complainant the petitioner agreed to supply some material to the complainant and the complainant gave him four post dated cheques after filling therein only the figure of Rs.1,25,000/- in each one of those cheques. Rest of the cheques were blank. The petitioner did not supply the material and got one cheque dated 16.01.2007 for Rs,1,25,000/- encashed in his Firm’s account. The petitioner then converted two cheques dated 25.01.2007 and 03.02.2007 from Rs.1,25,000/- to Rs.11,25,000/- by adding the figure ‘1’ in the figure column and writing in words eleven lacs twentyfive thousand and presented those forged cheques to the bank for encashment but since the complainant had already become suspicious when the petitioner had got encashed one cheque without supplying the material he had issued stop payment instructions to the bank on 18/01/2007. When the petitioner presented those two forged cheques for encashment the complainant’s bank informed him vide its letter dated 19.02.2007 that two cheques presented were for Rs.11,25,000/- while stop payment instructions were in respect of cheques for Rs,1,25,000/-.

2. The police had submitted a final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. dated 18.09.2009 in the Court of the Magistrate to the effect that no case was made out against the petitioner herein but as stated in this bail application the Magistrate was not convinced with that report and ordered further investigation by DIU/OD which is still pending and now the petitioner apprehends his arrest. Hence, this anticipatory bail application.

3. The petitioner had also filed a criminal complaint in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 190 Cr.P.C. against the complainant herein for his prosecution for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 181/182/193/195/420/406/380 IPC alleging that that he had given a friendly loan of Rs.22,50,000/- to him as he had to pay money for the purchase of some property. The complainant herein had issued two post dated cheques dated 25.01.2007 and 03.02.2007 of Rs.11,25,000/- each favouring the petitioner herein. However, when those cheques were presented for encashment the same were not encashed by the complainant’s bank as he had issued stop payment instructions. The Metropolitan Magistrate had taken cognizance against the complainant of the present case and summoned him as an accused vide order dated 17.03.2009. That summoning order was challenged by the complainant herein and in his revision petition he had claimed that the present petitioner had, in fact, committed forgeries by converting the cheques for Rs.1,25,000 each into cheques for Rs.11,25,000. The Sessions Court allowed that revision petition vide order dated 21.01.2010 and set aside the summoning order and the accused(the complainant herein) was discharged by observing that it was a case of civil liability only. In that order it was noticed by the Sessions Court that the revisionist had assailed the summoning order on the ground that only a prima facie case of civil liability was disclosed and no criminal liability was attracted. That plea of the complainant herein was accepted.

4. The petitioner herein had filed two civil suits also under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure on the basis of the two dishonoured cheques for a sum of Rs.11,25,000 each. In those civil suits the complainant Umesh Chander V