Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 10 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
207
(1) CRM-M-39783-2020 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.02.2021
Jasbir Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .....Respondent
(2) CRM-M-39813-2020 (O&M)
Vivek Chawla .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI
Present : Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate
for the petitioner in both the cases.
Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana
for the respondent-State.
Mr. Parshant Sethi, Advocate for
Mr. Vivek Gupta, Advocate
for the complainant.
Mr. Mohit Aneja, Advocate
for the applicant-Rekha Gupta in
CRM-2140-2021 in CRM-M-39783-2020 and
CRM-2105-2021 in CRM-M-39813-2020.
****
ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, J. (ORAL)
(The case has been taken up for hearing through video
conferencing.)
CRM-2140-2021 in CRM-M-39783-2020 &
CRM-2105-2021 in CRM-M-39813-2020
The applicant has filed these applications for impleading
her as respondent No.2 in the array of parties.
The applications have been filed on the averments that the
1 of 5
CRM-M-39783-2020 (O&M) -2-
CRM-M-39813-2020 (O&M)
applicant had paid amount of Rs.60,75,000/- to the petitioners for
purchase of five flats and 10% share in the company in the name of the
applicant and her family members. The flats were to be constructed
within two years and amount of Rs.55 lakhs was also to be returned
within two years. Neither flats have been given nor the amount has
been given. Two other FIRs have been registered and one more
complaint has been made against the petitioners. The applicant, being
affected party, may be impleaded as respondent and her claim may be
considered before granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Notice of the applications.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel
and learned Counsel for the complainant have accepted notice of the
applications.
I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned
Counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel and learned Counsel
for the complainant.
Learned Counsel for the applicant has, while reiterating
factual averments made in the applications, submitted that the
petitioners have also cheated the applicant and the applicant being
affected party may be impleaded as respondent and her claim may be
considered before granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Learned
Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the observations in
judgment of Kerala High Court in Kunhiraman Vs. State of Kerala :
2005 (18) R.C.R. (Criminal) 475.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioners,
learned State Counsel and learned Counsel for the complainant have
2 of 5
CRM-M-39783-2020 (O&M) -3-
CRM-M-39813-2020 (O&M)
opposed the applications and submitted that the applicant is not a
necessary or proper party to the present petitions for grant of
anticipatory bail and the applications may be dismissed.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that
arrest of the petitioners has been stayed by the Allahabad High Court in
separate FIR registered at the instance of the applicant and arbitration
proceedings are also pending between the petitioners and the applicant
regarding the dispute between them.
In the present case the applicant has filed the present
applications for impleading her as respondent on the ground that the
applicant is also victim of the offences committed by the petitioners
who are also involved in several other FIRs but separate FIR was
registered at her instance in Uttar Pradesh in which case the arrest of
the petitioners has been stayed by the Allahabad High Court. The
applicant is not a necessary or proper party to the present petitions for
grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the applicant cannot be allowed to
be arrayed as respondent to the same. Particularly so when the
complainant in the present case has compromised the matter with the
petitioners during mediation in the Mediation and Conciliation Center
of this Court agreeing to take proceedings for quashing of the FIR.
Accordingly, the applications for impleading the applicant
as respondent No.2 are hereby dismissed.
CRM-M-39783-2020
CRM-M-39813-2020
Petitioner-Jasbir Singh has filed CRM-M-39783-2020
and petitioner-Vivek Chawla has filed CRM-M-39813-2020 under
3 of 5
CRM-M-39783-2020 (O&M) -4-
CRM-M-39813-2020 (O&M)
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the
Cr.P.C") for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.121 dated
24.03.2018 registered under Sections 420, 506 and 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 in Police Station Faridabad N.I.T., District Faridabad.
Vide order dated 01.12.2020, while issuing notice of
motion, this Court had granted interim anticipatory bail to the
petitioners with direction to join the investigation and the matter was
referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for
exploring the possibility of amicable settlement between the parties.
The Mediator has submitted the report that the parties have
compromised as per terms and conditions mentioned in the compromise
enclosed with his report.
I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned
State Counsel and learned Counsel for the complainant and have gone
through the record.
Learned State Counsel has, on instructions from
Investigating Officer, acknowledged that in compliance with order
dated 01.12.2020 passed by this Court, the petitioners have joined the
investigation and their custodial interrogation is not required in the
case.
Learned State Counsel and learned Counsel for the
complainant have no objection if the petitions are allowed and interim
order dated 01.12.2020 is made absolute.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,
statement of learned State Counsel that custodial interrogation of the
petitioners is not necessary and compromise between the complainant
4 of 5
CRM-M-39783-2020 (O&M) -5-
CRM-M-39813-2020 (O&M)
and the petitioners, I am of the considered view that the petitioners
deserve grant of anticipatory bail.
In view of the above, the petitions are allowed and order
dated 01.12.2020 passed in both the cases granting interim anticipatory
bail to the petitioners is made absolute. However, the petitioners shall
join the investigation again if and as and when called upon to do so and
shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 438 (2) of the
Cr.P.C. failing which the protection of anticipatory bail order shall not
be available to them.
10.02.2021 (ARUN KUMAR TYAGI)
Vinay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
