Mere issuance of a cheque that is subsequently dishonored does not amount to cheating under Section 420 IPC unless the accused induced the complainant to deliver property or do something at the time of issuing the cheque.

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. Petitioner is claiming anticipatory bail as Police Station, Civil Lines, Ludhiana has registered a criminal case under Sections 420/506 I.P.C. vide F.I.R. No. 369 dated 8.12.1997 against him.

2. Petitioners contention is that complainant Shri Parkash has lodged the afore-mentioned report against him alleging that petitioner had played a fraud and misappropriated amount of Rs. sixty lacs. Petitioner is N.R.I. and is residing in Dubai. He never came to Ludhiana in the year 1994. Therefore, the question of his entering into any agreement with the complainant in the year 1994 in Ludhiana does not arise. He has no business dealings with the complainant. Even the cheques issued by him are not in the name of the complainant but they are in the name of Saleh Abdulla Hamad, UAE. He also contends that even if certain cheques issued by the petitioner are not encashed by the Bank that will not amount to an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. as at the time when cheques were issued he never induced the complainant to deliver any goods to him. If there is any old business transaction under which certain amount is to be paid to the complainant for the goods alleged to have been supplied by him to the petitioner, it is a civil dispute for which complainant has no right to lodge F.I.R. against him under sections 420/506 I.P.C. The petitioner has also placed on record photo copy of his Pass Port to show that in the year 1994 he never came to India.

3. to support his contention, learned counsel has relied upon:

i) Rajinder Dutt v. State of Haryana, 1993(1) R.C.R. 236;

ii) Sohan Lal Jain v. M/s Sun Flag Textiles Ltd., 1988(1) R.C.R. 157;

iii) Virender Kumar Jain v. State of Haryana, 1983(2) R.C.R. 603;

iv) P. Eswara Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1986 Cr. L.J. 207.

v) Nagarajan v. Jinnah Saheb, 1986 Cr. L.J. 483.

4. During arguments, the complainant has also placed on record a copy of the agreement entered into between him and Saleh Abdullah Hamad, UAE National. Learned counsel explained that petitioner being Indian National is not allowed to hold any trade licence in U.A.E. Therefore, he entered into this agreement under which Saleh Abdullah Hamad allowed him as investor of his trade licence No. 140336 to carry on the business of foodstuff under the trade name of Saleh Abdullah Hamad Trading Establishment. The complainant is doing this business under this agreement as Investor. Therefore, he supplied foodstuff to the accused petitioner under this trade licence. The petitioner came to India in 1994 and at that time he and the petitioner entered into an agreement for the supply of foodstuffs to the petitioner at Dubai. In pursuance of this agreement, complainant was supplying foodstuffs to the petitioner at Dubai. Petitioner issued cheques worth about sixty lacs in the name of Saleh Abdullah Hamad Trading Establishment but they were meant for him as he was operating this trade licence as an Investor under the afore-mentioned agreement. No cheque could be encashed and thereby the petitioner has cheated him and has misappropriated the goods supplied by him to the petitioner under the agreement of sale. Learned counsel for the complainant also submitted that once he met the petitioner in Ludhiana and asked him to make payment. He threatened him at the point of pistol. Thus according to him prima facie both the offences are made out. The petitioner is avoiding arrest.

5. Learned Deputy Advocate General also argued that during investigation many documents are required to be seized from the accused petitioner. He is avoiding arrest. Neither he is joining investigation nor he is making himself available to the Police for arrest/further investigation.

6. From the averments made in the petition and the documents submitted by the parties it is evident that the allegations made against the petitioner are serious and require deep and thorough investigation.

In P. Eswara Reddys case (supra) cheque issued by the accused was d