RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of the above mentioned five petitions/applications filed by Dr. Ram Singh -petitioner/applicant i.e. Criminal Misc. No.M -35150 of 2013 and Criminal Misc. No.M -35172 of 2013 filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents No.2 to 4, Criminal Misc. No.43116 of 2013 in Criminal Misc. No.M -10103 of 2013 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for recalling/modifying the order dated 13.9.2013 passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No.M -10103 of 2013, Criminal Misc. Application No.46509 of 2013 in Cr. Misc. No.5316 of 2013 and Criminal Misc. Application No.46440 of 2013 in Cr. Misc. No.M -5317 of 2013 filed by applicant No.2 Ram Singh under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for initiating the suo motu contempt proceedings against Balwinder Singh etc. All these cases are taken -up together because in all the cases point in dispute is the same. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner/ applicant -Ram Singh contended that the case FIR No.22 dated 2.2.2013 registered at Police Station Lalru, District S.A.S. Nagar for the offences under Section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B IPC has been quashed on the basis of compromise dated 20.3.2013 vide order dated 13.9.2013 passed in Cr. Misc. No.M -10103 of 2013. Two cheques for Rs. 10 Lacs and '7.5 Lacs have been given by the accused, who are respondents in these petitions/applications. Both these cheques were dishonoured. Therefore, he argued that Balwinder Singh etc. (respondents/nonapplicants herein) in the present petitions/applications have played a fraud upon petitioner/applicant Dr. Ram Singh as well as upon this Court. Hence, he argued that the order dated 13.9.2013, vide which the FIR was quashed, may be recalled. He also argued that anticipatory bail granted merely on the basis of compromise, should be cancelled and contempt proceedings may be initiated.

(2.) ON the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for private respondents argued that the respondents/non -applicants had already paid cash amount on the basis of compromise. The civil suits were withdrawn and there was no mala fide intention on the part of the respondents to make any misrepresentation or not to pay the money. The cheques were bounced later on after the passing of the above order as the cheques were post -dated. The respondents/non -applicants prepared the drafts of the said amount on 28.10.2013 and they appeared in the Court on 6.11.2013 and offered the amount without any unnecessary delay.

(3.) LEARNED senior counsel also argued that the respondents firstly went to the present applicant to repay the amount, but when he refused to receive the same, then they offered drafts of that amount in the Court, but again the applicant refused to accept these drafts, which have been deposited with the Registrar General since then as per order of this Court and the present applicant -Ram Singh has not taken that amount. Therefore, he argued that rather the intention of applicant -Ram Singh is mala fide and for a small lapse that the cheques were bounced, he is not interested in the money or in the compromise, rather he wants to punish the present respondents. He further argued that he has even offered applicant -Ram Singh to take even the interest at commercial rate of that period and damages. I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the parties.