* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % BAIL APPL.N. 1198/2012 + Date of Decision: 24th September, 2012 # TARVINDER SINGH Appellant ! Through: Mr. O.P. Wadhwa, Advocate Versus $ STATE .…Respondent Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State Mr. Amit Vohra, Advocate for R-
2-complainant CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
ORDER
P.K.BHASIN, J:
The petitioner– accused seeks anticipatory bail in a case under Sections 420/468/471/511 IPC registered against him vide FIR No.257/2007 pursuant to the directions given to the police by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini on 20.04.2007 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. when the complainant Umesh Chander Vij had filed a criminal complaint dated 22.02.2007(being CC No.320/1/2007) after the police had failed to register the FIR on his complaint. The allegations against the petitioner were that the complainant had business dealings with the petitioner and his Firms and with the bad intentions of cheating the complainant the petitioner agreed to supply some material to the complainant and the complainant gave him four post dated cheques after filling therein only the figure of Rs.1,25,000/- in each one of those cheques. Rest of the cheques were blank. The petitioner did not supply the material and got one cheque dated 16.01.2007 for Rs,1,25,000/- encashed in his Firm’s account. The petitioner then converted two cheques dated 25.01.2007 and 03.02.2007 from Rs.1,25,000/- to Rs.11,25,000/- by adding the figure ‘1’ in the figure column and writing in words eleven lacs twentyfive thousand and presented those forged cheques to the bank for encashment but since the complainant had already become suspicious when the petitioner had got encashed one cheque without supplying the material he had issued stop payment instructions to the bank on 18/01/2007. When the petitioner presented those two forged cheques for encashment the complainant’s bank informed him vide its letter dated 19.02.2007 that two cheques presented were for Rs.11,25,000/- while stop payment instructions were in respect of cheques for Rs,1,25,000/-.
The police had submitted a final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. dated 18.09.2009 in the Court of the Magistrate to the effect that no case was made out against the petitioner herein but as stated in this bail application the Magistrate was not convinced with that report and ordered further investigation by DIU/OD which is still pending and now the petitioner apprehends his arrest. Hence, this anticipatory bail application.
The petitioner had also filed a criminal complaint in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 190 Cr.P.C. against the complainant herein for his prosecution for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 181/182/193/195/420/406/380 IPC alleging that that he had given a friendly loan of Rs.22,50,000/- to him as he had to pay money for the purchase of some property. The complainant herein had issued two post dated cheques dated 25.01.2007 and 03.02.2007 of Rs.11,25,000/- each favouring the petitioner herein. However, when those cheques were presented for encashment the same were not encashed by the complainant’s bank as he had issued stop payment instructions. The Metropolitan Magistrate had taken cognizance against the complainant of the present case and summoned him as an accused vide order dated 17.03.2009. That summoning order was challenged by the complainant herein and in his revision petition he had claimed that the present petitioner had, in fact, committed forgeries by converting the cheques for Rs.1,25,000 each into cheques for Rs.11,25,000. The Sessions Court allowed that revision petition vide order dated 21.01.2010 and set aside the summoning order and the accused(the complainant herein) was discharged by observing that it was a case of civil liability only. In that order it was noticed by the Sessions Court that the revisionist had assailed the summoning order on the ground that only a prima facie case of civil liability was disclosed and no criminal liability was attracted. That plea of the complainant herein was accepted.
The petitioner herein had filed two civil suits also under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure on the basis of the two dishonoured cheques for a sum of Rs.11,25,000 each. In those civil suits the complainant Umesh Chander Vij has been granted leave to defend the suits subject to his depositing in Court the amount of the two dishonoured cheques which he has deposited.
Learned counsel for the petitioner–accused had submitted that since in his complaint filed against the complainant herein the Sessions Court had observed that the dispute was of a civil nature and because of that observation the petitioner had filed civil suits in which cases the controversy whether the petitioner had forged cheques or not is pending trial and so the same dispute cannot on the complaint of the complainant herein be considered to be a dispute of criminal nature. It was also submitted that since the dispute whether petitioner had committed any forgery or not was pending consideration before the Civil Court the petitioner deserves the relief of anticipatory bail since whatever decision the Civil Court would be taking would bind the Criminal Court. It was also submitted that the original cheques were not returned to the petitioner and the suits were filed by him on the basis of bank’s certificates regarding dishonour of the cheques. It was also argued that the complainant was forcing the petitioner to withdraw the civil suit and then he would withdraw the present complaint since he had to deposit in Court the amount of the two dishonoured cheques. It was also contended that it was highly improbable that the complainant herein would have issued by filling in the figure of Rs.1,25,000/- only in the two cheques and leaving the rest of the body of the cheques blank and even, prima facie, he has not been able to justify issuing blank cheques. In case figures could be filled in the same amount could have been filled in words also as also the name of the petitioner or his Firm.
On the other hand, learned APP for the State, who was assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, submitted that since there are serious allegations of forgery against the petitioner he does not deserve the relief of anticipatory bail despite the fact that the complainant has not been put to any loss by those forgeries committed by the petitioner. It was also contended that the custody of the petitioner would be required for recovery of two cheques in question which the petitioner had converted into cheques for Rs.11,25,000 by adding the figure of ‘1’ in the column of figure in the cheque where, as per the complaint, he had filled the figure of Rs.1,25,000/- only in both the cheques.
After having given my due consideration to the submissions made at the bar and considering the allegations and counter allegations and the fact that civil suits between the parties in respect of the same controversy are pending in Court and the Sessions Court itself had observed in the revision petition filed by the complainant herein against the order of the Magistrate summoning him as an accused for the offence of cheating that the dispute between the parties was of a civil liability I am of the view that this application deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed and the interim anticipatory bail already granted to the petitioner-accused is now made absolute on the same terms and conditions.
September 24, 2012 P.K. BHASIN, J