Jagdish Rai vs State of Punjab

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) - This order shall dispose of three petitions namely, CRM-M-28795 of 2011 titled as "Jagdish Rai v. State of Punjab", CRM-M-28741 of 2011 titled as "Hem Raj v. State of Punjab" and CRM-M-29241 of 2011 titled as "Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Punjab" in which the petitioner(s) has prayed for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.301 dated 10.8.2011 under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short `IPC'') at Police Station City Sangrur.

In CRM-M-28795 of 2011, following order was passed on 21.9.2011:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that there was a loan transaction between Hem Raj and Sanjeev Kumar by virtue of an agreement dated 30.4.1993 for an amount of Rs. 4.5 lacs. Since the loan was obtained by Hem Raj on behalf of M/s Gopal Rice Mill and had not paid it, the loaner Sanjeev Kumar filed a suit for recovery which was not contested by Hem Raj much less the firm and the suit was decreed ex parte on 2.5.2006. Thereafter, neither any application was filed by the loanee for setting aside the ex parte decree nor this plea was ever taken even in the execution that the said agreement dated 30.4.1993 was forged. It is contended that before the aforesaid decree complainant Ashok Kumar had purchased the property of the firm which was put up for sale for the purpose of recovery of the decreetal amount. The complainant had also filed two objections under Order 21 Rule 58 and Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but both were dismissed and then a compromise was arrived at between the parties on 15.6.2011 according to which the complainant was required to pay a sum of Rs. 15.25 lacs to the loaner (Sanjeev Kumar). In the meantime, the petitioner Jagdish Rai, who is a partner of M/s Anpurna Rice Mill entered the arena as he got the rights from the decree holder Sanjeev Kumar but the complainant was not ready to pay the amount as per compromise, therefore, it is alleged that the present false FIR has been registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before coming to this Court, he had filed an application for bail before the trial Court, which has been dismissed simply on the ground that accused Sanjeev Kumar had earlier moved an application when there was no FIR for protecting his liberty in which it was ordered by the Court that State would give 3 days notice to Sanjeev Kumar prior to his arrest on the complaint of Ashok Kumar/complainant. It is further submitted that the earlier application was not filed by the petitioner, therefore, his bail application could not have been dismissed by the learned trial Court on the ground of concealment of an order passed in favour of co-accused/non-applicant Sanjeev Kumar.

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab for 4.10.2011.

In the meantime, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail by the Investigation Officer on his furnishing bail bonds to his satisfaction. He shall also abide by the conditions contained in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973."

In CRM-M-28741 of 2011, following order was passed on 21.9.2011:

"Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab for 4.10.2011.

In the meantime, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail by the Investigation Officer on his furnishing bail bonds to his satisfaction. He shall also abide by the conditions contained in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

To be heard along with CRM-M-28795 of 2011."

In CRM-M-29241 of 2011, following order was passed on 21.9.2011:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order passed by this Court in CRM-M-28795 of 2011. He has fairly stated that the only additional feature in this case is that the petitioner had not disclosed in his petition the earlier petition decided by the trial Court on 18.1.2011. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in said petition he was given an opportunity of notice, therefore, the reference was not made in the present case.

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab for 4.10.2011.

In the meantime, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail by the Investigation Officer on his furnishing bail bonds to his satisfaction. He shall also abide by the conditions contained in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973."

In all the aforesaid petitions, arrest of the petitioner(s) was stayed in the meantime.

On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner (s) had submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise.

Copy of the compromise was handed over to learned counsel for the State for the purpose of verification.

Learned counsel for the State has made a statement today, on the instructions received from HC Varinder Kumar, that the compromise has been verified to be correct.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case where parties have entered into compromise and the offences are compoundable in terms of the decision of Full bench in a case titled as "Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another" 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 all the aforesaid petitions are allowed and order dated 21.9.2011 passed in CRM-M-28795 of 2011 titled as "Jagdish Rai v. State of Punjab", order dated 21.9.2011 passed in CRM-M-28741 of 2011 titled as "Hem Raj v. State of Punjab" and order dated 26.9.2011 passed in CRM-M-29241 of 2011 titled as "Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Punjab" is hereby made absolute subject to the conditions already contained therein.