VEENU TANEJA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the petitioners under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C., in case FIR No.83 dtd. 23/2/2021, under Ss. 406, 420 and 120-B of the IPG, registered at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar.

(2.) The FIR was registered against the petitioners on the allegations of committing cheat, fraud and breach of trust with the complainants, namely, Balbir Kumar Jain and Deepika Chalana. Substance of the allegations against the petitioners was that on the pretext of purchasing gold jewellery, ornaments and gold coins by reposing confidence/trust during the initial transactions by making payments to the applicants on time, they subsequently avoided to make further payments and thus cheated the complainants, who have contended that from the very beginning their intention was to cheat them by taking a huge quantity of gold ornaments, jewellery and gold coins etc.

(3.) It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. In the year 2018, the Petitioner No.l had lost a few bank cheques from her cheque book containing No.013441 to 013455 and the lost cheuqe numbers were 013452, 013453, 013454, 013455 and she had requested the bank to stop payment of these cheques and in this regard, she had also given a complaint to the Punjab Police and on her complaint, the concerned police Authorities had recorded a "Lost Information Report" bearing No.7251/2018 dtd. 17/4/2018. It was further argued that in November 2020, the Petitioner No.l had received a legal notice issued by Sh. Vikas Jain and Sh. Devanshu Aggarwal Advocates on the instructions of M/s J.K. Jewellers through its partner Mr. Rakesh Jain under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and after receiving the said notice, the applicants came to know that it is the complainant and his wife, who had very cleverly stolen four cheques of the applicant No.l in March-April, 2018 from her House-cum-Office and she immediately gave a complaint to the Police against the Complainant side including Arun Jain and his wife Charu Jain to the SSP Mohali, which was marked to DSP Mohali. It was further argued that the complainant party had themselves filled one cheque out of four stolen cheques of the amount of their choice and further falsely presented the same in their bank after more than 2% years from the date of theft of those cheques. It has also been argued that the accused/applicants and the complainant and his wife were called by the DSP Mohali, where Reader of DSP had recorded their statements and given assurance that he will take action on their complaint, but to their utter surprise, they came to know that this false FIR has been registered against them from the office of DSP Mohali. According to the Petitioners, the present FIR is absolutely an abuse of the process of law, and that a bare perusal of the FIR shows that the complainant and his wife have hatched a conspiracy against the applicants to grab money from them under threat of false complaint against them. The Complainant had himself admitted in the FIR that account with regard to purchase of jewellery and ornaments was cleared by Veenu Taneja. It was further argued that the complainant and his wife have been openly blackmailing the applicants. On the same and identical facts of the FIR and on the same cause of action, the complainant has already filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of N.I Act, which is pending in Chandigarh Courts, in which the applicant No.l has appeared and been granted bail by the said Ld. Court and vide order dtd. 23/12/2020, the said Ld. Court has specifically stated that "since, the complaint is totally based on documentary evidence, no benefit would be achieved by sending the matter to the police for investigation, particularly when matter can be enquired by the Court itself'. It has further been argued that the applicants had never visited the shop or home of the complainants for the last two years and there is no signature of the applicants on any bill raised by the complainant regarding receiving of any jewellery, which clearly shows that they have falsely prepared the bills. It is the further submission that the case is based on documentary evidence, which is to be proved during trial and at this stage nothing is to be recovered from the Petitioners and they are not required for any custodial interrogation and prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. It was lastly also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are innocent and have not committed any offence and rather the complainants have falsely implicated them, as complainant Arun Jain and his wife had stolen blank signed cheques of applicants from their house, regarding which they had already informed the police and got their payments to be stopped and thereafter complaint under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is pending, in which they have been summoned as accused and they have also moved one complaint against Arun Jain and Charu Jain, which is pending for inquiry, but no action has been taken against them. It has been emphatically argued that custodial interrogation of the Petitioners is not required and they are ready to join investigation and it is only a case of documentary evidence, which would be seen at the time of trial.