Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar Baria vs State Of Punjab on 15 July, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:087757
CRM-M No. 41340 of 2023 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
217
CRM-M No. 41340 of 2023
Date of Decision: 15.07.2024
Raj Kumar Baria .....Pe oner
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate for the pe oner.
Mr. G.S.Bhullar, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Akhil Ahuja, Advocate for the complainant.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.(ORAL)
FIR No. Dated Police Sta2on Sec2ons 180 26.05.2023 Sohana, District SAS 406 and 420 IPC Nagar, Mohali
1. Apprehending arrest in the FIR cap oned above, the pe oner-accused, had come up before this Court seeking an cipatory bail under Sec on 438 CrPC.
2. Vide order dated 23.08.2023, the co-ordinate Bench of this court granted interim bail to the pe oner which is con nuing ll date.
3. Counsel for the pe oner submits that ini ally for the same amount, complainant had filed a complaint under Sec on 138 of the Nego able Instruments Act. That on verba m allega on present FIR was registered.
4. Counsel for the complainant is present in Court and submits that pe oner had criminal intent and had played a fraud upon him.
5. Facts of case of the prosecu on is taken from reply dated 20.02.2024 which reads as follows:
"1. That it is respec8ully submi9ed here that a complaint dated 21.01.2022 was submi9ed by the complainant namely Sachin Talwar before Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar for registra on of FIR against Dr. Raj Kumar Baria (the pe oner) for commi<ng chea ng, in which he broadly stated that he and Dr. Raj Kumar Baria (the pe oner) were known to each other from last 5-6 years and were having financial dealings. The complainant was working as a freelancer in the profession of refund/cancella on of the insurance policies, which had been fraudulently done by the insurance companies. The accused had 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 20-07-2024 02:43:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:087757 CRM-M No. 41340 of 2023 2 approached the complainant regarding the cancella on of his policies. In lieu of the services of the complainant, the accused was to pay some of 30% of the amount released from the policies. The accused had received Rs.25,88,000/- in his account towards the refund/cancella on of his policies. The accused had also received an amount of Rs.8,13,500/- from the complainant on the pretext of personal urgency. When the complainant repeatedly demanded back his money, the accused showed his inability to pay back the amount, however the accused offered to sell a flat situated in Khasra No. 1532, at Pink Home Solon view near Govt. Degree college Rajgarh Road, Solan. The complainant agreed to the same and an Agreement to sell dated 17.08.2020 was entered between the par es. The accused had assured that the flat was free from all sorts of in cumbrances. li ga ons, mortgage, charge, but later on the complainant came to know that the said flat of the accused was being mortgaged with some bank. The complainant confronted the accused on this and the accused admi9ed his mistake and further entered into a compromise/se9lement deed dated 08.09.2020 and issued a cheque 089485 dated 21.06.2021 of PNB Bank to the complainant which had been dishonored as the accused had Blocked the same. The accused from very first day had malafide inten on and never wanted to return the money and had inten on to cheat the complainant. The complainant further stated that aGer dishonour of the cheque, the accused again admi9ed his guilt and entered into a compromise dated 11.11.2021 with the complainant and issued another fresh cheque bearing No. 000155 dated 05.12.2021 drawn on ICICI Bank Kasump Branch Shimla. Even the aforesaid cheque also got dishonoured. The accused knowingly issued the aforesaid cheque in order to cover up earlier dishonoured cheque and the proceedings/ac on against him. The accused had entered into compromise deeds aGer admi<ng his guilt and also executed false agreement to sell, which he never intended to perform. The complainant further stated that thereaGer, the accused flatly refused to return the money to the complainant. Hence, the complainant requested legal ac on against the accused.
2. That the aforesaid complaint was marked to Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-1, SAS Nagar for conduc ng preliminary enquiry. The enquiry officer aGer conduc ng enquiry found that the pe oner entered into an agreement to sell his flat with the complainant in lieu of amount payable by him to the complainant, whereas he was fully aware that there was already a bank loan against the aforesaid flat and knew that Sale Deed of the same could not be executed. However, the pe oner agreed to return double the amount and issued cheques, which got dishonoured. The pe oner did all this to save himself from further legal ac on. From all the above circumstances, the enquiry officer recommended to register FIR under 406,420 IPC against Raj Kumar Baria at Police Sta on Sohana District SAS Nagar and to carry out inves ga on.
2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 20-07-2024 02:43:16 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:087757 CRM-M No. 41340 of 2023 3
3. That the enquiry officer submi9ed his aforesaid report dated 17.11.2022 to Superintendent of Police, (City), SAS Nagar. AGer perusing the record, the Superintendent of Police, (City), SAS, Nagar while agreeing with the aforesaid enquiry report, submi9ed his report dated 06.12.2022 to Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar. On which, the Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar sought legal opinion from DDA (Legal), SAS Nagar. On which DDA, (Legal), SAS Nagar vide his legal opinion dated 19.05.2023 had recommended to register FIR under sec on 406, 420 IPC against Raj Kumar Baria. On which, Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar directed SHO, Police Sta on Sohana to register the FIR.
Hence, the present FIR No. 180 dated 26.05.2023 was registered under Sec on 406, 420 IPC at Police Sta on Sohana against Dr. Raj Kumar Baria."
6. I have heard the counsel for the par es, state counsel and gone through the record.
7. Given the nature of allega ons and fact that a complaint under Sec on 138 of the Nego able Instruments Act, 1881 was filed against the pe oner on the same set of allega on and there is no allega on that pe oner did not join inves ga on, or hamper inves ga on in the interregnum.
8. Given above, Pe on is allowed. Interim order dated 23.08.2023 is made absolute subject to the condi on that the pe oner shall a9end criminal trial under Sec on 138 of the Nego able Instruments Act also on each and every date and in case he fails to do so, it shall be permissible for the trial Court to cancel his bail. All pending applica ons if any stand disposed of.
15.07.2024 (ANOOP CHITKARA)
Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 20-07-2024 02:43:16 :::