Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arun Kumar Attri vs State Of Punjab on 13 March, 2024
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036199
CRM-M-35515-2023 1
2024:PHHC:036199
206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-35515-2023
Date of decision : 13.03.2024
ARUN KUMAR ATTRI ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. Ritesh Thomar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Dr. Sumati Jund, Advocate for the complainant.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.0183, dated 15.06.2023,
registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Derabassi, District SAS Nagar, the
petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-
arrest bail.
2. As per the contents of the FIR it has been alleged as under:
"xxx Heard upon the application under Section 156 (3) Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.PC) filed by
complainant seeking directions for SHO, PS Dera Bassi to register
an FIR under Sections 323, 325, 403, 406, 420, 506 of Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) against respondent no.
1. As per the allegations of the complainant respondent no. 1 had
taken an amount of Rs. 24,40,000/- from the complainant through
checks and later refused to return the same asserting that he had
already made the payment six years ago. Also, it is alleged that the
respondent NO.1 threatened the complainant with dire
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036199
2024:PHHC:036199
consequences. A complaint was given to Senior Superintendent of
Police, SAS Nagar, Mohali, but no action has been taken till date.
Hence, the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. PC was filed
before this Court. Report of the concerned SHO was called and as
per the said inquiry report, after recording the statements of the
parties, it has been opined that respondent no. 1- Arun Kumar Attri
had taken the amount of Rs. 24,40,000/- from the complainant by
inducing him with the pre- planned conspiracy to cause wrongful
loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to himself. It has been
reported that the respondent no. 1- Arun Kumar had thus cheated
the complainant and has committed the offenses punishable under
Section 406 and 420 of I.P.C. I have perused the record of the case.
Qua the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Lalita Kurnari Vs. Govt. of UP 2014 (2) SCC 1,
has held: "111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: i)
Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if
the information discloses commission of a cognizable offense and
no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. ii) If the
information received does not disclose a cognizable offense but
indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be
conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offense is
disclosed or not. iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where
preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the
entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant
forthwith and not later than one week. must disclose reasons in
brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. iv) The
police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offense if
cognizable offense is disclosed. Action must be taken against
erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received
by him discloses acognizable offence. v) The scope of preliminary
inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information
received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any
cognizable offence. vi) As to what type and in which cases
preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which
preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: a) Matrimonial
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036199
2024:PHHC:036199
disputes/ family disputes b) Commercial offences c) Medical
negligence cases d) Corruption cases e) Cases where there is
abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for
example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without
satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are
only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may
warrant preliminary inquiry. vii) While ensuring and protecting the
rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry
should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7
days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected
in the General Diary entry. ii) Since the General Diary/Station
Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received In a
police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable
offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an
inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said
Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also
be reflected, as mentioned above. 112) With the above directions,
we dispose of the reference made to us. List all the matters before
the appropriate Bench for disposal on merits." In view of the above
said judgment, as from the inquiry of police it has been disclosed
that a cognizable offence has been committed against the
complainant, exercising powers u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C., present
complaint is ordered to be sent to police station concerned with the
direction to SHO, P.S. Dera Bassi, to register the FIR against
respondent No.1 - Arun Kunar and to investigate the matter and to
file police report in the Court after investigation.xxx"
3. The petitioner himself has appended copy of the legal notice
received which shows that an amount of Rs.24,36,986.34/- has indeed
travelled to the account of the petitioner, paid by the complainant. The
matter was referred to the mediation.. The mediation has failed.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has eloquently argued that from
Annexure P-10, it is evident that money has been paid back to the
complainant and further submits that be that as it may, even if the amount
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036199
2024:PHHC:036199
has not been paid back, at the end of the day the dispute relates to monetary
transaction and no criminal offence is made out. Reliance is being placed
upon law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar vs. State
of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No.1741 of 2023 (Arising out of
SLP(Crl.) No.2358 of 2023) decided on 4th of July, 2023 and that judgment
passed by this Court in CRM-M No.25790 of 2022 titled as Anil Taneja vs.
Sate of Haryana and others, decided on 1st of September, 2022.
5. Counsel for the complainant as well as State Counsel on the
other hand submits that its a case wherein an old man was allured by the
petitioner and his family during the difficult times of the Corona. The
complainant was alone and was continuously interacting with the petitioner
and taking benefit of those times the complainant was taken for a garden
walk by the petitioner.
6. On being asked specifically, counsel for the petitioner is fair in
his admission that the petitioner never responded to the legal notice.
7. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through
records of the case.
8. The facts of the case narrate how an old person living single
was allured by the petitioner. Initially to build trust money borrowed was
returned however during Corona a huge amount was usurped. Not only that,
during the course of hearing Court was also made to taste the pill by the
accused along with the complainant. To begin with, he expressed his
intention to settle the matter but later came up with the stand that majority
money stands paid that too in account of the complainant. Counsel for the
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036199
2024:PHHC:036199
petitioner was asked to point out transfers made by him. He highlighted
them, the same came out to be Rs.2.5 lac only. On being asked how rest of
the money was paid. He had no clue.
9. As per settled law laid down by Apex Court in Gurbaksh
Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, reiterated in Sushila
Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2020 (5)
SCC 1 the Court while considering prayer for pre-arrest bail has to consider
as to whether the accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides, nature of
seriousness of the proposed charges, the role attributed to the applicant and
the probabilities of securing presence of the applicant during the course of
trial and as to whether there is any apprehension that the applicant will
tamper with the witnesses or evidence. It is the aforesaid considerations
which need to be balanced by the Courts while considering grant of pre-
arrest bail.
10. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, this Court does
not deem it fit to grant discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.
11. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
March 13, 2024 (Pankaj Jain)
Dpr Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
