Delhi High Court
Surender Singh Sood vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 2 December, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl.M.A. No. 5125/2010 in BAIL APPLN. 838/2009
Decided on 02.12.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
SURENDER SINGH SOOD ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP for the State
Mr. Sumit Chaudhary, Adv. for the complainant
with complainant in person.
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present application has been filed by the complainant
praying inter alia for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner, vide order
dated 3.12.2009, in the matter arising from FIR no. 829/2006 under
Sections 420/468/471/120-B IPC, registered at PS Paschim Vihar, on the
ground that that the petitioner has not paid the full sum of `15 lakhs to the
complainant, which was the condition imposed on him, while granting him
bail.
2. The brief facts of this case are that the complainant paid a total
sum of ` 75 lakhs to the petitioner, at different stages, to purchase human
hair for the purpose of export. As per the complaint, the petitioner did not
repay the sums of money given to him by the complainant, nor was any
commission from the export paid to the complainant, which resulted in the
complainant lodging the present FIR.
3. Vide order dated 29.05.2009, the petitioner was granted interim
bail in the present petition, on a statement made by him that out of 1735
kgs of hair to be exported, 1300 kgs was still lying in his godown, which
were not being claimed by the complainant. The bail was granted on the
condition that an inspection of the godown would be conducted, the hair
lying there would be seized and released to the petitioner's son, who would
find the best buyer for sale of the hair and apprise the court of the same. In
the event, no hair were found in the godown, the petitioner would be
immediately taken into custody.
4. The interim bail was extended from time to time to enable the
parties to resolve their disputes. On 3.12.2009, the petitioner gave an
undertaking before the court to the effect that he would pay a sum of `15
lakhs to the complainant, without prejudice to his right to contest the civil
and criminal case instituted against him by the complainant. Based on the
said undertaking of the petitioner, the court disposed off the bail application
of the petitioner, by confirming the interim bail granted vide order
29.05.2003. It was further directed that if it is ultimately found by the civil
court that the petitioner was not liable to pay the complainant `15 lakhs or
was liable to pay a lesser amount, then the remaining amount would be
returned to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
5. Subsequently, on the petitioner filing an application Crl.M.A.
331/2010, seeking extension of time for the payment of `15 lakhs to the
complainant, vide order dated 14.01.2010 three months were granted to
him to comply with the order of 3.12.2009. On 17.08.2010, the court
noticed that in spite of the 3 months extension granted to the petitioner, he
had not made any payment to the complainant. On the said date, the
petitioner produced three pay orders drawn in favour of the complainant
totaling a sum of `1,00,000/-. The matter was further adjourned based on
the statement of the petitioner that he would make payment of the rest of
the outstanding amount if he were given some more time. On 15.09.2010,
the petitioner made further payment to the complainant by producing three
demand drafts amounting to `1 lakh in court. The matter was renotified to
29.10.2010, on the submission of the petitioner that he would pay a further
sum of `4 lakhs to the complainant within 6 weeks.
6. On 29.10.2010, the Court noted that no further payment had
been made by the petitioner to the complainant, as assured by the petitioner
and recorded in the order dated 15.09.2010. At that stage, the petitioner
handed over a demand draft of `25,000/- to the complainant in court and a
cheque of `75,000/-, while giving an assurance that the cheque would be
honoured on presentation. As the petitioner had pleaded that he would be in
a position to pay the further sum of `3 lakhs within 4 weeks, at his request,
the matter was renotified for 2.12.2010. Later, on the same day, the court
was informed upon a mentioning by the complainant that the petitioner had,
in a mala fide manner, handed over a post dated cheque to him of an
amount of `75,000/-, bearing the date 25.11.2010. Since the Court was of
the opinion that petitioner had made a gross misrepresentation to the court,
that he was handing over a cheque of current date to the complainant, his
appearance was directed on 18.11.2010.
7. On 18.11.2010, the petitioner appeared in court and sought to
submit that there was a lack of communication and the assurance given by
him on the previous date was that the cheque would be honoured on
presentation and not that the cheque would be of current date. Though, the
petitioner did not deserve any latitude, on repeated pleas made by him that
he would not adopt such misleading tactics in the future and that the post
dated cheque would be honoured on presentation to the bank, the matter
was adjourned for today with a direction to the complainant to inform the
court, if the cheque was honoured on presentation.
8. Both parties are present in court today. The counsel for the
complainant informs the court that on 18.11.2010, after the court
proceedings, the petitioner approached the complainant and asked him to
return the cheque issued by him by representing that the court had directed
him, to take back the cheque, and he therefore returned the said cheque.
9. The petitioner was granted bail only on the condition that he
would pay `15 lakhs to the complainant. Since 3.12.2009, the petitioner has
been dilly dallying and misleading the court by giving false assurances that
he will make the payments in the future. As of today, after expiry of one
year from the date of the undertaking given by him, he has paid less than
one-fifth of the total sum that had to be paid to the complainant. The
petitioner has tried to take undue advantage of the leniency shown by the
court. He has deliberately dragged his feet, so as to continue enjoying the
latitude given to him, while failing to honour his undertaking given to the
Court. This has also resulted in delaying the adjudication on the present
application filed by the complainant for cancellation of bail granted to him.
10. It is quite apparent that the petitioner has resorted to falsehoods
to circumvent the order of this court to make payments to the complainant.
It is also clear from the conduct of the petitioner that he has no intention to
fulfill the undertaking given by him as recorded in the order dated
3.12.2009, confirming the interim bail granted vide order dated 29.05.2009.
The petitioner has been willfully misleading this court and has prolonged the
hearing on the present application by giving false assurances of clearing the
outstanding amount, undertaken by him to be paid to the complainant, when
in reality, he had no intention to do so. In the facts and circumstances of
this case, there exist cogent reasons and circumstances for the cancellation
of grant of bail. The application of the complainant for cancellation of bail is
therefore liable to be allowed, on the ground of the petitioner abusing the
concession of bail granted to him.
11. This court is not inclined to entertain any further pleas of
extension of time for payment of money due by the petitioner in the light of
his conduct. In view of the above observations, the present application is
allowed. The bail granted to the petitioner vide order 3.12.2009 stands
cancelled.
The application is disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded forthwith to the trial court for
information.
(HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 02, 2010 JUDGE
sk
