Punjab-Haryana High Court
P.Srinivasa Rao And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another ... on 7 September, 2011
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CRM-43794 of 2011 in CRM-M-4775 of 2011 1
In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh.
CRM-43794 of 2011 in
CRM-M-4775 of 2011
Decided on Sept 07,2011
P.Srinivasa Rao and others --Petitioners
vs.
State of Punjab and another --Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Sanjiv Bansal,Advocate, for the applicant/respondent No.2 MrA.S.Rai, DAG,Punjab.
Mr.Gaurav Mohunta,Advocate, for petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral) This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') in which one of the prayers made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the main bail application may be dismissed in terms of the statement made by petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 on 23.5.2011.
Notice in the application was given to the non-applicants who have filed their reply today and a copy thereof has been given to the learned counsel for the applicant.
Non-applicants/ petitioners have prayed for pre arrest bail CRM-43794 of 2011 in CRM-M-4775 of 2011 2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in a case registered vide FIR No.5 dated 19.1.2011 under Sections 420,406,465,467,468,471,474,477 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
At the time of preliminary hearing on 15.2.2011, the Court had issued notice of motion for 23.2.2011 but no interim bail was granted. After 3/4 dates, the parties expressed their desire before the Court that there could be an amicable settlement between the parties as the dispute had arisen from a business transaction .
In view thereof, vide order dated 21.3.2011, the matter was referred to the Permanent Lok Adalat of this Court to examine the possibility of an amicable settlement of the dispute. The parties were directed to appear before the Permanent Lok Adalat on 04.4.2011 and to enable them to appear their arrest was stayed. The exact wording of the order is "Arrest of the petitioners shall remain stayed in order to enable them to appear before the Lok Adalat".
Thereafter, the matter was put up before the Permanent Lok Adalat where petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were represented through their counsel. On 23.5.2011, the following proceedings took place before the Permanent Lok Adalat:-
"Power of attorney on behalf of petitioner No.1 as well as petitioners No. 2 and 3 has been filed today.Learned counsel for petitioners No. 2 and 3
has produced along-with Power of Attorney copy of the letter to the effect that anticipatory bail application on behalf of petitioners No.2 and 3 is to be withdrawn.
With respect to petitioner No.1, it is stated that he is ready to pay his share i.e.50% of the total amount due from Shamoon Exims as he was partner to the extent of 50%. However, counsel for the complainant is not agreeing for partial compromise. In this view of the matte, since no settlement could be arrived at, the case is returned to the Hon'ble High Court".
Thereafter, this case was placed before this Court. CRM-43794 of 2011 in CRM-M-4775 of 2011 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners had prayed for arguing this case on merit but it was categorically mentioned in the order dated 5.8.2011 that arrest of the petitioners was stayed only to enable them to appear before the Lok Adalat.
Learned counsel for petitioner Nos.2 and 3 has submitted that the petitioners had also filed CRM-M-19901 of 2011 for quashing of the FIR in which the following order was passed on 12.7.2011:-
"By this petition, quashing of First Information Report No.5 dated January 19th,2011, under Sections 406,420,465,467,468,471,474 and 477/120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib is sought on the ground that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that in Criminal Misc.No.M-6051 of 2011, co-accused of the petitioners also filed quashing of the present F.IR and in that, notice of motion has been issued for 29.8.2011 and this Court stayed the proceedings against them.
Notice of motion for 29.8.2011.
List alongwith the aforesaid petition. Meanwhile, further proceedings qua petitioners (Mohammed Ibrahim and M.K.Moinuddin) are stayed".
It is further submitted that this petition may not be dismissed but may be tagged with the quashing petition. On the contrary, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that even before the Court hearing the quashing petition, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have not projected true facts for the purpose of obtaining order of stay on the basis of previous order dated 25.2.2011 passed in CRM-M-6051 of 2011 which reads as under:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is nota partner of the firm. In a civil suit filed by respondent No.2. the name of petitioner was ordered to be deleted in the array of the defendants by learned Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division) -cum- CJM, Fatehgarh Sahib, on the basis of statement of Sh.H.S.Dhanoa,Advocate counsel for respondent No.2. He seeks quashing of FIR No.05 dated 19.1.2011 under CRM-43794 of 2011 in CRM-M-4775 of 2011 4 Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib, on the ground that the date of commission of offence is of 01.07.2009 to 23.12.2010 whereas the dissolution deed is of 12.07.2008.
Notice of motion be issued to the respondents, returnable for 25.5.2011.
Proceedings qua petitioner shall remain stayed".
Learned counsel further submits that there is no active role played by petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 as petitioner No.1 is ready to pay his 50% share of the total amount, but the learned counsel for the complainant is not ready for partial compromise in terms of the agreement made in the year 2008 and hence his name had rightly been deleted from the array of the respondents by the counsel for the complainant before the Civil Court, at Fatehgarh Sahib.
After going through the record, I am of the view that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be allowed to enjoy the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail because it was provided to them only to appear before the Lok Adalat,where the parties were to explore the possibility of settlement and since neither petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 appeared before the Lok Adalat nor they had desired to continue with the bail application as per letter dated 21.5.2011, therefore, pursuation of the present bail application at the hands of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 on merit at this stage is not made out.
Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for withdrawal of this bail petition on behalf of petitioner Nos. 2 and
3. Dismissed as withdrawn on behalf of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. CRM-43794 of 2011 in CRM-M-4775 of 2011 5
Sept 07,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge