Jagjit Kaur vs State of Haryana

S.C. Malte, J.

Notice to the complainant Sushil Kumar son of Mangat Ram as also to the Advocate General, Haryana for 25.9.1998.

Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate put in appearance eon behalf of the complainant. On the asking by the Court, Mr. Govind Dhanda, AAG, Haryana, has also taken notice. Copy supplied to the counsel for the complainant as also the AAG, Haryana.

The counsel for the complainant preferred to argue the case right today. The complainant''s case is that against the assurance, a cheque amounting to Rs. 10 lacs signed by petitioner 1 Jagjit Kaur was given to him. That cheque was towards the discharge of liability, the details of which at this stage need not be stated. That cheque bounced. The complainant when approached the petitioners for making grievance that the cheque has bounced, petitioner 1 got back that cheque on the pretext that she would look into the matter to find out what has gone wrong which resulted into bouncing of the cheque. The complainant claims that he is in possession of a photostat copy of that cheque. Later on, neither the cheque was returned nor the money was paid; on the other hand, on repeated persuasion by the complainant, the accused picked up quarrel. The only question before me is whether police custody of the petitioner would be necessary in such cases. From the complaint it clearly appears that the matter solely rests on the photostat copy of the cheque in question and the oral testimony of the complainant himself and one Iqbal Singh as a witness.

Further, the counsel for the complainant contended that the custody of the petitioners would enable the complainant to get the search of the premises in order to locate the cheque in question. This seems to be a submission made for the first time inasmuch as admittedly no efforts were made to get the search warrant since the return of the cheque in mid of August till this date though the complaint had been filed in the Court of the Magistrate on 18.8.1998.

It is stated that subsequently on the direction of the Court FIR was registered by the police on 23.8.1998. Even thereafter search was not effected.

The counsel for the complainant submitted that even after the registration of the FIR, the police so far has not taken steps for effecting search to locate the cheque in question.

In the set of circumstances, I am not convinced that the police custody of the petitioners would be necessary. The complainant, if so advised, and if the court in which the complaint is filed is convinced on merits, may obtain the necessary search warrant by moving that Court under Section 93 Cr.P.C.

Anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners in case FIR No. 144 dated 23.8.1998, under Sections 420, 406, 408, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt, on condition that in the event of their arrest, each of them shall be released on bail on executing bail bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer and on further condition that on 16.9.1998 at 3.00 PM the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police and thereafter as and when called upon to do so by notice in writing. Petitioner 1 Jagjit Kaur shall not be called at the Police Station after sunset and before sun rise. While attending the Police Station, she would be at liberty to be accompanied by a male member of her choice.