SATINDER SINGH GOLDY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.21 dtd. 20/1/2021 under Ss. 406,420 IPC registered at P.S Focal Point, District Ludhiana.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has joined investigation in terms of order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dtd. 15/2/2021. Order dtd. 15/2/2021 is as under:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that there were business dealings between the two firms since 2008. He stated that the alleged outstanding amount is in respect of the supply which being of inferior quality was returned to the complainant. Since 13/9/2012 there have been no dealings between the petitioner and the complainant. He argued that the institution of the present FIR is an abuse of the process of law. The debt, if any, has become time barred. A purely civil dispute is being giving a criminal colour just to harass the petitioner. As regards the cheques alleged issued by the petitioner which have been dishonoured, Ld. Counsel argued that those cheques were never issued to the petitioner's Firm nor do they bear his signatures. He has relied on a certificate issued by his banker the Union Bank of India . He further argued that in any case the complainant has filed a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the dishonour of the cheques. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has been defrauded by the petitioner and the FIR has been rightly registered against the petitioner who has refused to return the outstanding amount to the complainant in respect of goods/ material supplied by the complainant.