Punjab-Haryana High Court
Poonam Sharma And Another vs State Of Punjab on 6 December, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M- 35273 of 2012 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M- 35273 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 6.12.2012
Poonam Sharma and another
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Sandeep K.Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.K.D.S.Sidhu, Addl.A.G.Punjab.
Mr.Yogesh Goyal, Advocate for the complainant.
****
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 123 dated 15.10.2012 under Sections 406, 420, 380, 467, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Kotwali Nabha, Punjjab .
Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant M/s Narender Parkash and Company was manufacturing Auto parts. Shiv Kumar was working as a store keeper with the company. After checking of the quality of goods, Shiv Kumar used to send the bills to the accounts branch and thereafter, the payment with regard to the bills was made to the concerned parties, who had sold their goods to the company. About 6-7 months back, complainant came to know Criminal Misc. No.M- 35273 of 2012 (O&M) 2 that goods purchased from the parties from Rohtak were not lying in the store. On inquiry, it transpired that the said goods had never been received by the company. Shiv Kumar, in connivance with the parties of Rohtak, had forged the signatures of their gateman Umesh Kumar on the bills. Payment of most of the bills out of the forged bills were given to the parties. Thus, huge loss was caused to the company. After inquiry, payment with regard to the cheques given in lieu of some forged bills were stopped. Shiv Kumar absconded on coming to know about the investigation conducted by the complainant party. On receipt of notices qua two bounced cheques, complainant found that the said cheques had never been issued by the company. Later on it transpired that the cheques had been stolen and the signatures had been forged on the said cheques.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners and the complainant company were having business dealings with each other. The cheques in question had been issued by the company in favour of the petitioners. False complaint had been lodged by the complainant against the petitioners as complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had been filed by the petitioners against the company. The cheques had been dishonoured due to insufficient funds and not because of the fact that the signatures on the cheques did not match with the signatures of the complainant.
Learned State counsel, who is assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. Learned State counsel has further submitted that petitioner No.1 has failed to join investigation in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on Criminal Misc. No.M- 35273 of 2012 (O&M) 3 17.11.2012. Petitioners were required for custodial interrogation.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.
The allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature. Complainant company was manufacturing auto parts. Complainant company was having business dealings with the petitioners as they were supplying raw material to them. The case of the complainant is that the stolen cheques had been forged by the petitioners in connivance with Shiv Kumar, store keeper of the complainant company. Petitioner No.1 has failed to join investigation in terms of the order dated 17.11.2012. Petitioners are required for custodial interrogation.
Keeping in view the seriousness of offence committed by the petitioners, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is made out.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE December 06, 2012 anita