Punjab-Haryana High Court
Partap Singh vs State Of Punjab on 12 October, 2021
CRM-M-42961-2021 -1-
103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-42961-2021
Date of decision : 12.10.2021
Partap Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. J.S. Moudgil, Advocate for the complainant.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner in FIR No.101 dated 02.09.2021 registered under Sections 420
and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Dhariwal, District
Gurdaspur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the
present case, the complainant-Amrik Chand alongwith four other persons
had filed a Civil Suit No.CS/1819/2014 dated 18.09.2014 for recovery of
Rs.65,00,000/- against the father of the present petitioner and other persons.
It has been submitted that the petitioner was not a party in the said civil suit.
It is further submitted that the written statement was filed in the same and
the plea had been taken by the defendants therein that the documents sought
to be relied upon by the plaintiff therein were forged and fabricated and in
1 of 5
order to prove the same, the Handwriting Expert was examined and the
report of the Handwriting Expert dated 25.02.2019 (Annexure P-6) has also
been annexed with the present petition. It is submitted that the civil suit is at
the final stage. After a period of more than 7 years from the date of filing
the civil suit, the present FIR has been got registered in which, apart from
the father of the petitioner, even the petitioner has been roped in, only to
exert pressure on the family of the petitioner so as to make them concede in
the civil suit in favour of the complainants. It is submitted that apart from
the fact that the dispute in the present case is civil in nature, there is a delay
of 7 years in registration of the FIR. Even as per the record, the petitioner is
not a party to the alleged agreements dated 21.06.2010 and 01.04.2014
(Annexures P-3 and P-4). He has further submitted that the petitioner is not
involved in any other case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and
Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others, reported as 2007 (12) SCC 1.
Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:
"12. Having committed breach of his contractual
obligations, respondent No. 3 filed a criminal complaint to
the SHO of Raiwala, Rishikesh police station on 23.4.2003
against the appellants and three other persons alleging that
he had been cheated by the appellants in connivance with
other persons by selling a portion of his land to a third party
and by cancelling the General Power of Attorney. After
examining the matter, the SHO arrived at the conclusion that
no cognizable offence had been committed and the dispute in
question was of civil nature for which the civil remedy is
2 of 5
available in law.
13. Respondent No. 3 filed another complaint on the same
day, i.e. 23.4.2003, to the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Dehradun and got the FIR registered against the appellant
and three other persons. The allegation of respondent No. 3
was that the appellants in connivance with other persons
had sold the part of land situated in Old Khasra No. 140 and
new Khasra No. 89 which had been transferred to them by
way of General Power of Attorney. The FIR was registered
on 23.4.2003 as Case No. 26 of 2003 under sections 420,
467 and 120B Indian Penal Code.
xxx--xx--xxx
17. The High Court by order dated 16.7.2004 dismissed the
petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code filed by
the appellants on the ground that the records show that the
allegations in the FIR constitute an offence as alleged by the
complainant. The said order is challenged in this appeal by
special leave.
xxx--xx--xxx
34. In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. &
Others, 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 740 : (2006)6 SCC 736,
this court again cautioned about a growing tendency in
business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal
cases. The court noticed the prevalent impression that civil
law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately
protect the interests of lenders/creditors. The court further
observed that "any effort to settle civil disputes and claims,
which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying
pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated
and discouraged."
xxx--xx--xxx
42. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not
used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private
3 of 5
vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressure the accused...
xxx--xx--xx
56. Reverting to the facts of this case, we are of the
considered view that the impugned judgment of the High
Court in declining to exercise its inherent power has led to
grave miscarriage of justice. Consequently, we set aside the
impugned judgment and in order to prevent abuse of the
process of the court and to otherwise secure the ends of the
justice we direct that all the proceedings emanating from the
FIR shall stand quashed. The appeal is disposed of
accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we
direct the parties to bear their own costs."
Notice of motion.
On advance notice, Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab, appears
and accepts notice on behalf of the State and Mr. J.S. Moudgil, Advocate
appears on behalf of the complainant and have submitted that they are fully
prepared to argue the matter and assist this Court. They have submitted that
the present petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail
inasmuch as an amount of Rs.65,00,000/- is due from him and the said
amount of Rs.65,00,000/- is yet to be recovered from the petitioner.
This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the paper book.
It is not in dispute that the civil suit had been filed by the
complainant-Amrik Chand alongwith other persons against the father of the
petitioner, for recovery of Rs.65,00,000/-. The petitioner is not a party in the
said civil suit. In the written statement, the objections have been taken that
the documents relied upon by the complainant/plaintiff in the said suit are
forged and fabricated. The said civil suit was filed in the year 2014 and is at
4 of 5
the fag end and even the petitioner's father has got the Handwriting Expert
examined and it is only after 7 years of the alleged incident that the present
FIR has been registered. The present case is apparently a civil dispute which
has been sought to be given a criminal flavour. The Civil Court would
finally adjudicate upon the matter and thus, this Court does not wish to
make any opinion with respect to the merits of the case. The petitioner is, in
fact, not even a party to the alleged agreements dated 21.06.2010 and
01.04.2014 and is apparently being accused in the case after 7 years on the
pretext of being the son of Baldev Singh.
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the
present petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted the concession of
anticipatory bail subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) of
Cr.P.C. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when
called upon to do so.
However, nothing stated above shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed
independently of the observations made in the present case which are only
for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application.
12.10.2021 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
5 of 5
