Ashwani Kumar Kukkar vs The State of Punjab

Vijender Singh Malik, J.

Crl. Misc. No. 54409 of 2012

Miscellaneous application is allowed as prayed for.

Crl. Misc. No. M-28313 of 2012

Ashwani Kumar Kukkar, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 81 dated 08.08.2012 at Police Station Kabarwala, Tehsil Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, for an offence punishable under sections 120B, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Smt. Kanso, who had applied for allotment of a plot in the category of Terrorism Affected Person. According to him, Vinod Kumar had brought Smt. Kanso for applying for a plot in that category in Aero City, Mohali, where there was some reservation in favour of Terrorism Affected Persons and he had come with Smt. Kanso to the petitioner for loan. According to him, the petitioner is a public servant having a clean service record of more than 30 years and he is posted as manager of State Bank of India, Branch Bam, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. He has further submitted that six plots were applied in the name of Smt. Kanso by Vinod Kumar and there was agreement between the two regarding sharing of premium. He has further submitted that one plot was allotted in the name of Smt. Kanso measuring 250 square yards, in which premium was at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per square yard. He has further submitted that the petitioner had been present in the bank on all the relevant dates when he is alleged to have accompanied Vinod Kumar to the house of the complainant. He has further submitted that the case of the prosecution does not appear to be true because in the complaint, it is alleged that ration card, red card, voter card and other documents have been taken by the accused while Smt. Kanso lodged a daily diary report with Police Station Kabarwala that all these documents were lost on 06.06.2011 in Tehsil Complex Malout. He has further submitted that the case is based on documentary evidence where custodial interrogation is not required. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has cited before me decisions of coordinate benches of this Court in Naresh Kumar v. State of Punjab 2010(1) RCR (Cri) 318, Palle Ram Sarpanch v. State of Haryana, 2012(2) RCR (Cri) 584, Laxmi Narain v. State of Haryana 2010(1) RCR 485 and Sakrullah Khan v. State of Haryana 2001(3) RCR (Cri) 137.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there is growing tendency in business circles to convert purely simple disputes into criminal cases, because civil remedies are time consuming. According to him, the criminal cases instituted in order to enforce civil rights bring early result and that give reason to the parties to convert the civil disputes into criminal cases. In this regard, he has placed reliance on a decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others 2007(4) RCR (Cri) 548.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner was totally at loss to explain as to why the petitioner is named in the FIR. If the petitioner had no role to play in the transaction and he was only working as a branch manager, who was approached for loan, it cannot be believed that he would have been implicated in this manner. There are clear cut allegations against him of obtaining signatures/thumb impressions of the complainant and Smt. Kanso. There are further allegations that the petitioner, when approached, made his intention clear to the complainant. The report with the police by way of daily diary report to the effect that the ration card, red card etc. have been lost on 06.06.2012 could be got recorded by making application in this regard on the blank sheets of paper having the signatures/thumb impressions of the complainant and his wife. This is not a case based purely on documentary evidence. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is definitely required for investigation of this case. There is nothing available on the record which can be said to have given rise to a civil dispute attempted to be given the colour of criminal case. So the decisions in the above referred cases have no application to the facts of this case. In these circumstances, the petitioner can not be held entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.