The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of producing crucial documents, the relevance of the deceased and beneficiary's involvement, and the application of settled legal principles in determining the merit of seeking anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT :

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 17 dated 17.02.2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar Rural.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners inter-alia contended that petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that present civil dispute has arisen amongst partners of different firms which has been given the criminal colour. He further submitted that present FIR is an afterthought, which has been registered after a delay of six years and seven months from the date of occurrence alleged to have been committed on 01.07.2016. He further submitted that only allegation against the petitioners is with regard to usurping the share of one of the partners namely, Inderpal Singh Sandhu by modifying Association of persons and such share subsequently alleged to have been transferred to Dalbir Kaur in connivance with Surjit Singh (since deceased). He further submitted that in Association of persons dated 01.04.2017, neither complainant nor his father were partners and as such, no question of investing by them arises at all. In the entire allegations, the petitioners have admittedly got nothing and the beneficiary was only Dalbir Kaur, who got the share transferred in her name to the extent of 70% which her husband was as per Association of persons dated 01.04.2017, who died on 25.09.2020 and, therefore, no offence is made out against the petitioners. He further submitted that the allegations on the face of it are of civil nature and in fact the partnership deed (AOP-Annexure P-3) contains the arbitration agreement in Clause-14. He further submitted that till date the complainant has not challenged the sale deed even before the civil Court. He further submitted that complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint on the basis of which the FIR has been registered as neither he nor his father was partner in the company. He further submitted that all the allegations are based upon documents and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. He further submitted that allegations are otherwise also against Surjit Singh, who has since died and beneficiary is his wife Dalbir Kaur, who has already been granted ad interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 23.02.2023 passed in CRM-M-9774 of 2023. He further submitted that the petitioner No. 1 got regular bail in similar FIR No. 162/2022, got registered by the same complainant in the same Police Station and lastly on 31.01.2023 he was granted bail and immediately thereafter the present FIR has been registered on 17.02.2023 on similar facts. He further submitted that the allegations in the present case are required to be examined in the light of allegations levelled in FIR No. 104 dated 07.05.2021 registered under Section 420 IPC (Sections 465, 467, 471, 120-B IPC added subsequently) as reference of “Fair Property Creative Builders” has already been given in the said FIR. He further submitted that the complainant is habitual of filing complaints against the petitioners with a sole purpose to harass them as petitioners were booked in three cases bearing FIR No. 104 dated 07.05.2021 under Section 420 IPC (Sections 465, 467, 471, 120-B IPC added subsequently); pertaining to M/s C.C. Developers, FIR Nos.162 and 163 dated 08.09.2022 under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station Gharinda, District Amritsar Rural pertaining to M/s I.K. Traders and M/s Creative Traders respectively at the instance of the complainant. He further submitted that separate FIRs containing similar type of allegations in respect of same cognizable offence are not permissible and he has placed reliance u