Judgment:
Crl.M.No.M-30912 of 2013(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-30912 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: September 16, 2013 Ashok Kumar alias Raju .....Petitioner v.
State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner....RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.54, dated 16.8.2013, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide which application filed on behalf of the petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Brief allegations are that complainant was to send her son abroad for getting some employment and for that purpose, petitioner- accused alongwith his wife and three other persons was introduced by Co.accused Ravinder Singh to her on the plea that they were in the business of sending people to abroad and and that his son would be sent to France via Mali.
For this purpose petitioner and co-accused demanded `10 lacs, out of which `3.00 lacs were given in advance and as a security a cheque for `3.00 lacs was also given to complainant by co-accused Veena, which was later on not encashed and hence a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was also filed by the complainant against her.
As per further allegations, son of complainant was sent to Mali after receiving `60,000/- on 1.2.2011.
There are specific allegations that the said amount was given to Meenu petitioner and co-accused Dildar alias Bagga.
Petitioner and co-accused 2013.09.17 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl.M.No.M-30912 of 2013(O&M) -2- again approached the complainant and had taken away his son to Delhi Airport for sending him to Mali.
After her son reached Mali, another sum of `2.00 lacs was given to petitioner and co-accused.
Another sum of `50,000/- was given on 19.3.2011.
On 24.4.2011 she was again approached by the petitioner and the co-accused and `3.00 lacs were handed over to all of them after their assurance that her son would be sent to France.
However, thereafter her son was not sent to France.
Rather they received a telephonic call from him that they had been cheated by the petitioner and co-accused and that he was left in the forest of Mali by petitioner and Co.accused.
Another sum of `2.00 lacs was arranged by son of the complainant from his elder brother from Spain and the same was also handed over to agents of the petitioner and the co-accused.
However, he was not sent to France.
Brother of the complainant, who is living in America, somehow arranged 3000 USA dollars and managed to get a return ticket for son of the complainant to India.
Hence, allegations are that they have been cheated of `12.45 lacs by petitioner and the co-accused.
It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that in the complaint filed by the complainant, it was mentioned that `6.00 lacs were demanded by the accused for sending her son to France and, however, `3.00 lacs were initially given and as a security a cheque was also given.
It is further contended that matter was enquired by the police when earlier similar complaint was given to the police by the complainant on 3.12.2011 and, however, there was a compromise, which is Annexure P3, according to which complainant agreed to accept `60,000/- from petitioner -accused.
Further submitted that petitioner is ready to pay the said amount of `60,000/- to complainant.
It is also contended that he was also ready to pay the said amount before Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, and he has also brought draft of `60,000/- today.
It is also contended that complainant, who is a lady, is having her relatives living abroad and hence it cannot be said that she has been cheated by the petitioner in the manner the facts were narrated by her.
There are very serious allegations against petitioner-accused.
Complainant has given specific dates of various payments and the source of Meenu money given to petitioner and co-accused.
Her son was taken to Mali by 2013.09.17 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl.M.No.M-30912 of 2013(O&M) -3- petitioner and co-accused and left in the jungle of Mali and he returned to India after arranging ticket with the assistance of brother of the complainant.
Earlier also a writing was given by the complainant to the police in the year 2011.
Hence, merely on the ground that she was made to sign some compromise which was not complied by the petitioner at that time and now when the FIR was lodged, he has offered to take reliance upon the same and offered to comply with the same, it cannot be said that he is entitled for concession of extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Ashok Kumar alias Raju for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
16.9.2013 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Meenu 2013.09.17 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh