DHARAMPAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition filed under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C, petitioners pray for grant of anticipatory bail in a case arising out of FIR No.23 dtd. 27/1/2020, under Ss. 406 and 420 of IPC, registered at Police Station Ambala Sadar, Ambala.

(2.) (i) According to the petitioners, they are proprietors of firm M/s Mahavir Rice and Dal Mills, Ambala City, established in 1973. The firm is in the business of procuring paddy from the District Food and Supply Department and milling it into rice. The firm of the petitioners entered into an agreement with District Food and Supply Controller on 1/10/2018, whereby it was agreed to procure 6933.64 metric tonnes of paddy for Kharif Marketing Season 2018-19, for milling into rice. The firm was required to deliver 4645.51 metric tonnes of milled rice.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the agreement dtd. 1/10/2018 (Annexure P-3) entered between the parties includes an arbitration clause, despite which authorities proceeded to initiate criminal proceedings in a bid to give civil dispute, a criminal colour. It is further contended that an amount of Rs.96,84,643.00 has already been recovered from the firm of the petitioners by the authorities after registration of the FIR, as is evident from Annexure P-5 and this fact has also been noticed in the order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambala (Annexure P-4) dismissing the application for anticipatory bail. Besides, the authorities have already attached the land measuring 27 Kanals 19 Marlas situated at village Dhurkada, Hisar Road, District Ambala belonging to the firm of the petitioners, so as to recover the amount. Learned counsel further submits that ever since registration of the FIR on 27/1/2020, petitioners have been co-operating with the investigation and voluntarily paid significant amount. It is more than three years from the date of registration of the FIR that petitioners are sought to be arrested despite co-operation. Learned counsel further contends that ever since registration of the FIR, no notice as required under Sec. 41A Cr.P.C. was ever served upon the petitioners, which is imperative in view of the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in "Satinder Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation", reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51. Learned counsel contends further that FIR fails to make out the ingredients required for commission of offences under Ss. 406 and 420 of IPC and still, petitioners are ready to join the investigation.