Man Mohan Singh vs State of Punjab

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

Petitioner is claiming anticipatory bail as Police Station, Civil Lines, Ludhiana has registered a criminal case under Sections 420/506 IPC vide FIR 369 dated 8.12.1997 against him.

Petitioner''s contention is that complainant Shri Parkash has lodged the aforementioned report against him alleging that petitioner had played a fraud and misappropriated amount of Rs. sixty lacs. Petitioner is NRI and is residing in Dubai. He never came to Ludhiana in the year 1994. Therefore, the question of his entering into any agreement with the complainant in the year 1994 in Ludhiana does not arise. He has no business dealings with the complainant. Even the cheques issued by him are not in the name of the complainant but they are in the name of Saleh Abdulla Hamad, UAE. He also contends that even if certain cheques issued by the petitioner are not encashed by the Bank, that will not amount to an offence under Section 420 IPC as at the time when cheques were issued he never induced the complainant to deliver any goods to him. If there is any old business transaction under which certain amount is to be paid to the complainant for the goods alleged to have been supplied by him to the petitioner, it is a civil dispute for which complainant has no right to lodge FIR against him under sections 420/506 IPC. The petitioner has also placed on record photo copy of his Passport to show that in the year 1994 he never came to India.

To support his contention, learned counsel has relied upon :

(i) Rajinder Dutt v. State of Haryana, 1993(1) RCR 236;

(ii) Sohan Lal Jain v. M/s Sun Flag Textiles Ltd., 1988(1) RCR 157;

(iii) Virender Kumar Jain v. State of Haryana, 1983(2) RCR 603;

(iv) P. Eswara Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1986 Cr. L.J. 207; and

(v) Nagarajan v. Jinnah Saheb, 1986 Cr.L.J. 483.

During arguments, the complainant has also placed on record a copy of the agreement entered into between him and Saleh Abdullah Hamad, UAE National Learned counsel explained that petitioner being Indian national is not allowed to hold any trade licence in UAE; therefore, he entered into this agreement under which Saleh Abdullah Hamad allowed him as investor of his trade licence No. 140336 to carry on the business of foodstuff under the trade name of Saleh Abdullah Hamad Trading Establishment. The complainant is doing this business under this agreement as Investor, therefore, he supplied foodstuff to the accused petitioner under this trade licence. The petitioner came to India in 1994 and at that time he and the petitioner entered into an agreement for the supply of foodstuffs to the petitioner at Dubai. In pursuance of this agreement, complainant was supplying foodstuffs to the petitioner at Dubai. Petitioner issued cheques worth about sixty lacs in the name of Saleh Abdullah Hamad Trading Establishment but they were meant for him as he was operating this trade licence as an Investor under the aforementioned agreement. No cheque could be encashed and thereby the petitioner has cheated him and has misappropriated the goods supplied by him to the petitioner under the agreement of sale. Learned counsel for the complainant also submitted that once he met the petitioner in Ludhiana and asked him to make payment. He threatened him at the point of pistol. Thus according to him prima facie both the offences are made out. The petitioner is avoiding arrest.

Learned Deputy Advocate General also argued that during investigation many documents are required to be seized from the accused petitioner. He is avoiding arrest. Neither he is joining investigation nor he is making himself available to the Police for arrest/further investigation.

From the averments made in the petition and the documents submitted by the parties it is evident that the allegations made against the petitioner are serious and require deep and thorough investigation.

In P. Eswara Reddy''s case (supra) cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured when presented to Bank. It was held that no offence either under Section 415 or under Section 420 IPC could be said to be made out. Mere taking of the cheque by the complainant for encashment did not, in case of its dishonour, amount to any damage to the body, mind, reputation or property of the complainant under the Indian Law.

In Nagarajan''s case (supra) it is held that giving of cheque in lieu of money due with knowledge of drawer having no funds with bank does not amount to an offence of cheating.

In Virender Kumar Jain''s case (supra) a Single Judge of this Court has held that person receiving cheques not induced to deliver any property to the accused or do anything at the time of issuing the cheque, no false representation was made by the accused at that time and if subsequently cheques are dishonoured, it could give rise to a civil liability. It does not constitute an offence of cheating.

The facts in Sohan Lal Jain''s case (supra) are also similar to the facts in Virender Kumar Jain''s case (supra). In this case also accused received certain goods from the complainant from time to time. He issued cheque in discharge of outstanding amount, cheque was dishonoured by the bank. It was held that no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out as at the time of purchase accused did not induce the complainant to supply the goods. Cheques were given later on. No offence under Section 420 IPC is made out.

In Rajinder Dutt''s case (supra) the accused gave an outburst at the time of assault that he will kill the complainant. On this fact it was held that it is not sufficient to hold that offence would fall under Section 506 IPC.

During arguments, petitioner''s learned counsel submitted that there were business dealings between the petitioner and the complainant and the petitioner issued cheques in the name of Saleh Abdullah Hamad Trading Establishment. According to the learned counsel these cheques were issued at Dubai and goods were supplied in Dubai. Therefore, till the provisions of Section 188 IPC are complied with, Ludhiana police has no jurisdiction to hold investigation in the said case.

At this stage, the above objection cannot be considered unless all the relevant documents are seized and witnesses are examined during the investigation. At the present moment there is no material on record to show that provisions of Section 188 Cr.P.C. are required to be complied with.

All the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts. The police is yet to hold investigation, collect evidence, seize documents and to submit challan. At the threshold of the investigation, under the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner has no right to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Resultantly, bail petition is dismissed.