Non-compliance with the terms of a compromise agreement, in the absence of its production before the trial court, does not constitute a valid ground for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.

1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The complainant-petitioner has moved this application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent-Shri Anil Vajpayee in S.B.Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.9213/2011 by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 12.10.2011 in respect of Regular Criminal Case No.552/2011 pending for adjudication before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur arising out of FIR No.416/2010 registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur.

Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this application may be stated as below:-

(i) FIR No.416/2010 came to be registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC against the accused-respondent at the instance of the petitioner Shri Hanuman Singh wherein it was alleged that the respondent playing fraud upon him and some other persons obtained several lacs of rupees from them mis-representing that huge profits will be gained by investing the amount in the business run by the respondent. During the course of investigation the respondent was arrested on 04.10.2010 and after investigation charge-sheet was filed against him for offences under Section 420 and 406 read with Section 120-B IPC on 30.11.2010. As many as three applications filed by the respondent for grant of bail were dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Honble Court vide orders dated 15.11.2010, 23.02.2011 and 31.05.2011 respectively.

(ii) During the course of trial, on 02.09.2011 statement of petitioner Shri Hanuman Singh was recorded by the trial Court as PW2 and that of two other aggrieved persons Shri Ajay Singh and Shri Ram Singh were also recorded as PW3 and PW4 respectively.

(iii) On 02.09.2011 itself an application seeking permission of the Court to compound the offences alongwith compromise was jointly filed by the petitioner the aforesaid two aggrieved persons Shri Ajay Singh and Shri Ram Singh and the accused-respondent through their counsels before the trial Court and the learned Court after verifying the fact of compromise attested it on the same day. It is to be noted that in the compromise filed alongwith the application for permission to compound the offences, it was not made clear on what terms and conditions the parties have entered into compromise and only the fact of compromise and settlement of dispute between the parties was stated in it. It was not stated either in the application or in the compromise that in compliance of the settlement certain Demand Draft and cheques are to be given by the accused-respondent to the petitioners and aforesaid two aggrieved persons.

(iv) On 02.09.2011 an application was also filed by the accused-respondent in the trial Court to seek permission of the Court to sign as many as nine cheques (the details of which were given in the application) on the ground that he being in judicial custody permission of the Court is required to sign the cheques. Alongwith the application all nine cheques were also produced before the Court. The learned trial Court after hearing the accused respondent passed an order to the effect that the cheques produced by the accused-respondent may be sent to the Central Jail, Jaipur so that the respondent can sign upon them and it was further directed that the same may be sent back to the Court alongwith the respondent on 03.09.2011.

(v) In compliance of the aforesaid order/direction signature of the respondent were obtained on all the cheques and they were produced before the trial Court on 03.09.2011. Vide order dated 03.09.2011 the learned trial Court again sent all the aforesaid signed cheques back to the Central Jail, Jaipur with a direction that the same may be given to the accused-respondent at the time of his release from the jail and a receipt thereof may also be obtained from him and the same may be sent to the Court as and when it is obtained.

(vi) The accused-respondent moved