Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpreet Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 11 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050321
1
CRM-M-15618 of 2023
2023:PHHC:050321
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-15618 of 2023
Date of decision: 11.04.2023
Harpreet Kaur
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: - Mr. Naveen Bawa, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section
438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.104 dated
09.03.2023 under Sections 406, 420 IPC, registered at Police Station
Division No.7, District Ludhiana.
2. Present FIR has been registered on the basis of the
complaint made by complainants Vijay Kumar Sachdeva and others
alleging therein that the complainants started committee /chit fund with
the petitioner and her son Sukhmani and at that time, the petitioner took
blank cheques from each of the complainant as security. The petitioner
collected amounts of the committee from the complainants regularly
but when the payment of committee was to be made by the petitioner to
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050321
CRM-M-15618 of 2023
2023:PHHC:050321
the complainants, then she started harassing them as she had falsely
assured them that she will make the payment to them within a short
span of time. When the complainants jointly demanded their money
from the petitioner, then she moved false complaint at P.S. Division
No.7, Ludhiana in order to implicate the complainants in some false
case. After that, complaint was made by the complainants against the
petitioner with the Economic Offences Wing through the
Commissioner of Police and as a result thereof, petitioner had appeared
before the EO Wing and stated that she will bring the register
maintained by her with regard to the collection of committee amounts
and when she was asked about security cheques received from the
complainants, she completely stepped back and stated that she is not
having any cheques of anybody. Subsequently, the petitioner was called
many times at EO Wing, but she did not turn up, rather in order to
involve the complainants in litigation, she presented the cheque
amounting to Rs.2,75,000/- belonging to complainant Vijay Kumar
Sachdeva and cheque amounting to Rs.4,10,000/- belonging to
complainant Preeti Sharma on 12.10.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. He further submitted that nothing is to be paid by the petitioner to
the complainants inasmuch as there is no detail of the amount paid by
the complainants to the petitioner as committees. He further submitted
that if the allegations made in the FIR are accepted on its face value,
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050321
CRM-M-15618 of 2023
2023:PHHC:050321
even then no criminal offence is made out against the petitioner and a
civil dispute has been given criminal colour. He further submitted that
petitioner is not involved in any other case and she is ready and willing
to join the investigation.
4. Per Contra, learned State counsel, who appears on receipt
of advance copy of the paperbook, has opposed the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail. On instructions from Investigating Officer, learned
State counsel submitted that petitioner has taken Rs.15,62,000/- from
12 persons. He submitted that to recover the defrauded amount,
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
6. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the
petitioner had sought time to get instructions as to whether petitioner
was ready to settle the dispute with the complainants/victims.
However, today he has shown his inability to settle the dispute by
returning the amount.
7. Earlier, the petitioner filed bail application before the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, which has been
dismissed vide order dated 17.03.2023 by recording following findings:
"6. As per version of the prosecution case, the FIR has
been registered on the basis of the complaint made by
complainants Vijay Kumar Sachdeva and others, wherein
it has been alleged that the complainants started
committee /chit fund with the applicant-accused and her
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050321
CRM-M-15618 of 2023
2023:PHHC:050321
son Sukhmani and at that time, the applicant took blank
cheques from each of the complainant as security. The
applicant-accused collected amounts of the committee
from the complainants regularly, but when the payment of
committee was to be made by the applicant-accused to the
complainants, then she started harassing them as she had
falsely assured them that she will make the payment to
them within a short span of time. When the complainants
jointly demanded their money from applicant-accused,
then she moved false complaint at P.S. Division No.7,
Ludhiana in order to implicate the complainants in some
false case. After that, complaint was made by the
complainants against the applicant-accused with the EO
Wing through the Commissioner of Police and as a result
thereof, applicant-accused had appeared before the EO
Wing and stated that she will bring the register maintained
by her with regard to the collection of committee amounts
and when she was asked about security cheques received
from the complainants, she completely stepped back and
stated that she is not having any cheques of anybody.
Subsequently, the applicant-accused was called many
times at EO Wing, but she did not turn up, rather in order
to involve the complainants in litigation, she presented the
cheque amounting to Rs.2,75,000/- belonging to
complainant Vijay Kumar Sachdeva and cheque
amounting to Rs.4,10,000/- belonging to complainant
Preeti Sharma on 12.10.2022.
7- Though the applicant-accused as per the counsel for the
applicant, has already filed complaints under section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act against two of the
complainants, but perusal of the file shows that at this
stage, there are 12 victims in the case, with whom, fraud is
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050321
CRM-M-15618 of 2023
2023:PHHC:050321
alleged to have been committed by the applicant-accused
and it is specific case of the prosecution that some other
frauds committed by the applicant-accused may come to
the light during her custodial interrogation and hence,
filing of complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act against twocomplainants is not going to
dilute the allegations against the applicant-accused. It is
not between two individuals, rather it involve number of
persons. No enmity against other complainants has been
alleged by the applicant-accused and hence, even if the
complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act is filed against two persons, does not make the entire
allegations untrustworthy. Prior to the registration of the
FIR, the matter in dispute had been inquired in detail and
it came out during inquiry that the complainants were
members of the committee being run by the applicant-
accused and they were paying the committee amount to the
applicant regularly, however, she failed to make payment
of committee amount to the complainants at relevant time.
In this way, the applicant seems to have played fraud with
the complainants in a very clever manner and she is
alleged to have misappropriated huge amount of money.
This will show the dishonest intentions of the applicant.
When the entire allegations taken together, it clearly make
out the part played by the applicant in the incident.
8. The provisions of section 438 of the Criminal
Procedure Code are in the nature of an exception to
general rule that an investigating agency must be given a
free reign to arrive at the truth. The law is well settled that
the provisions contained in Section 438, Criminal
Procedure Code, relating to anticipatory bail are to be
sparingly invoked and not in routine. Reference here can
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050321
CRM-M-15618 of 2023
2023:PHHC:050321
be made to the judgment in case of Sachin @ Sachin
Ahuja Vs. State of Haryana 2022 (4) RCR Criminal 968.
9. Consequently, the applicant-accused is not entitled to
concession of anticipatory bail and hence, the bail
application is dismissed."
8. From the perusal of above order it transpires that prior to
registration of the present FIR, a detailed inquiry was conducted and
during inquiry it was revealed that complainants were members of the
committee being run by the petitioner and they were paying the
committee amount to the petitioner regularly, however, petitioner did
not make payment of the amount to the complainants and she has
played fraud with the complainants.
9. As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 Supreme Court
Cases 171, power exercisable under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is somewhat
extraordinary in character and it is to be exercised only in exceptional
cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or
where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of
an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his/her liberty.
10. Reliance can be placed upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court
dictum passed in Prem Shankar Prasad v. The State of Bihar and
another, 2021(4) RCR (Crl.) 598 and Anil Kumar Singh v. High
Court of Judicature at Patna through its Registrar General and
another, (2020)19 Supreme Court Cases 364 whereby the Hon'ble
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050321
CRM-M-15618 of 2023
2023:PHHC:050321
Apex Court had denied the concession of anticipatory bail in view of
the gravity of offences and the conduct of the petitioner.
11. In view of the above, petitioner does not deserve the
concession of anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is
dismissed.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
11.04.2023 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050321
7 of 7
