Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 422
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arvind Singh Sangwan
Sohit Khosla & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M No.16890 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 06-07-2020
Mr. V.K. Jindal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, AAG, Punjab and Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate, for the complainant.
Headnote:
anticipatory bail - Indian Penal Code - 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B - The court discussed the amendments in the FIR, mismatch between the contents of the FIR and the investigation, and the civil nature of the disputes. The court allowed the anticipatory bail based on the documentary evidence and directed the petitioners to join the investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations under various sections of the Indian Penal Code related to a mismatch between the contents of the FIR and the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the amendments in the FIR and the addition of new allegations were not in accordance with criminal law. It also noted that the disputes between the parties were primarily of a civil nature and that custodial interrogation was not required based on documentary evidence.
Issues: Mismatch between FIR and investigation, addition of new allegations, civil nature of disputes, custodial interrogation requirement
Ratio Decidendi: The court allowed anticipatory bail based on the documentary evidence and the civil nature of the disputes, concluding that custodial interrogation was not necessary.
Final Decision: The petitioners were granted interim bail and directed to join the investigation, with a two-month period to deposit a specified amount before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
JUDGMENT
Arvind Singh Sangwan. J. - Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in FIR No.151 dated 18.06.2020 registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') at Police Station City Batala, District Batala.
2. On 29.06.2020, the following order was passed:-
"Heard through video conferencing.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a total mismatch as regards the contents of the FIR and the investigation which has been carried out on the basis of the FIR. It has further been contended that though the FIR talks about the purchase of jewellery by the petitioners on behalf of a third person and giving a cheque to the complainant on behalf of that third person, the investigation talks of a wholly different issue that is regarding the issuance of power of attorney in favour of the petitioners by the complainant.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of the court, Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab has joined the session through video conferencing and accepts notice on behalf of the State.
Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate, has also put in appearance and accepted notice on behalf of the complainant. He has submitted that on 19.06.2020 there was an amendment in the FIR by way of two Rapat Nos.49 and 50 and these Rapats were physically handed over to the Reader of the Court while the matter was being heard through video conferencing. However, in the order dated 20.06.2020 the same has inadvertently not been noticed due to the fact that the documents which were given to the Reader of the Court were not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of deciding the application.
Same contentions have been reiterated by the learned counsel for the State.
Adjourned to 02.07.2020.
Reply, if any, be filed on or before the next date of hearing."
3. The complainant has filed his counter-affidavit along with the documents and advance copy to learned senior counsel for the petitioners.
4.Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has argued that in fact, the petitioners and the complainant, previously were having business dealings and on an earlier occasion, the petitioner lodged an FIR No. 168 dated 29.08.2017 under Sections 420, 406, 34 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Batala, was registered against Jaswinder Kaur and Surinder Pal Singh, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioners to deal on their behalf. It is further submitted that even subsequently, another FIR No.127 dated 21.08.2019 under Sections 420, 406, 34 IPC, Police Station City Batala, District Batala, was also registered against the aforesaid two persons i.e. Jaswinder Kaur and Surinder Pal Singh.
5. Learned senior counsel has also submitted that even the complainant has filed complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the N.I. Act'), against Jaswinder Kaur and Surinder Pal Singh, which are pending before the Court at Batala and therefore, the petitioners never dealt on their behalf with the complainant. It is further argued that in fact, the dispute between the complainant and his mother arose with the petitioners, on account of a registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 22.06.2017, in furtherance of which the petitioner No.l has entered into an agreement to sell on 04.12.2019 with one Damandeep Singh and Barinder Pal Singh on behalf of the complainant. It is also submitted that even on that account, Damandeep Singh and Barinder Pal Singh have filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the complainant, his mother and petitioner No.l on 03.05.2020 and the same is pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Batala. It is further argued that in fact, it is the complainant, who owe an amount of Rs.26 lacs to petitioner No.l and in this regard, on dishonouring of a cheque issued by the complainant and his mother, the petitioner No.l has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 13.05.2020, which i
