The main legal point established in the judgment is that the pendency of arbitration proceedings regarding the embezzled amount can be a valid ground for granting anticipatory bail.

ORDER

K. K. Srivastava, J. - Petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code in case FIR No. 392 dated 10.10.1997 registered under Sections 408, 406, 420 Indian Penal Code Police Station Gohana.

Petitioner was working in Jolly Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Jolly, Tehsil Gohana District Sonepat. According to the averments made in the FIR the petitioner was accused of embezzling an amount of Rs. 9,71,734/- which amount together with the interest swelled to Rs. 10,49,560/-. The matter regarding this amount, was referred to arbitrator and arbitration proceedings are pending in this case. The petitioner has contended that the dispute, which is of civil nature, is yet to be resolved by the arbitrator. At the time of issuance of notice of motion the petitioner had relied on two judgments reported in Naranjan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1975 CLR 212 and Randhir Singh v. State of Haryana and another, 1975 CLR 612. In the case of Naranjan Singh (supra) it was found that the matter regarding the amount of embezzlement had been referred to arbitration and the dispute was to be resolved in the arbitration proceedings. A learned single Judge of this Court held in para 4 as under :-

"During arguments, it was admitted that the matter regarding the amount due from the petitioner has been referred to the arbitration of the Assistant Registrar, Kaithal. In April, 1974, in accordance with the agreement executed by the petitioner but no award has been given by the arbitrator until now. It was stated at the bar by the counsel for the petitioner that the arbitrator even before giving the award got the land of the petitioner worth about two lacs attached. In para 11 of the petition, the translation of the first information report lodged against the petitioner is given, wherein it is not mentioned that during what period the fertilizer worth Rs. 1,10,463.84 was entrusted to the petitioner and when he committed the embezzlement. The dispute regarding this amount as stated above is pending before the arbitrator. The dispute between the petitioner and the Society is of a civil nature. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case, I am of the considered view that this petition must be allowed. As a result, this application is accepted and it is ordered that in the event of his arrest in this case, the petitioner-Naranjan Singh shall be released on bail. He shall join the investigation of this case, as and when required by the police."

2. In case of Randhir Singh (supra) also a learned single Judge of this Court held that "Since the parties have already resorted to arbitration proceedings, it will be appropriate to issue a direction as required by Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code." Accordingly, the learned single Judge in the case of Randhir Singh (supra) granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

3. Learned State counsel on the other hand has placed reliance on a judgement of Ravinder Pal Singh Gautam v. M/s. Punjab Tractors Ltd., 1987(1) RCR 680 wherein a learned single Judge of this Court while deciding the criminal revision filed against the order of Magistrate framing charges for the offence under Section 420 Indian Penal Code held that mere pendency of a civil suit for the recovery of an amount received by the opposite party by cheating is no ground to bar proceedings in the criminal court in respect of such cheating. The consequences that flow from the decision of the two courts are quite separate and distinct. It was further held that the criminal court will punish the offender for the wrong committed but it will not and cannot compensate the victim of such cheating for what he has urged there. This can only be done by the civil court and consequently both proceedings then continued simultaneously. The matter before the learned single Judge in the case of Ravinder Pal Singh (supra) relate to the quashing of the charge framed by the trial court filed offence punishable under Section 420