ABC EZY PACK Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dtd. 9/1/2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant criminal revision petition whereby FIR has been directed to be lodged against the petitioner on account of furnishing false, fabricated and bogus bail bonds and surety bonds on an application moved by respondent No.2 before the Court below.

(2.) Shorn of the unnecessary details, the factual matrix of the case in hand shows that the respondent No.2 had instituted four complaints under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner-Firm. Subsequently, a joint compromise was effected between the parties in the Mediation Centre and accordingly the complainant had withdrawn the complaint in question by reserving his right to re-initiate the complaint at the same stage in case of default on the part of the accused. As per the terms of the said compromise, it was mutually agreed between the parties that in the event of the accused failing to honor their commitment for making payments in installments, the trial Court would have the authority to restore the complaints and recommence the proceedings. However, later on, the petitioner-herein (accused) failed to adhere to the terms and conditions stipulated in the compromise. The cheques issued by the accused in furtherance of the settlement were dishonored upon presentation. Despite making repeated requests to the accused to honor and remit the amount due against the dishonored cheques, the accused unequivocally refused to make the requisite payments thereby violating the terms and conditions of the compromise which forced the complainant-respondent No.2 to seek revival of the original complaint. The learned Court below on the basis of material placed before it, revived the complaint vide order dtd. 30/8/2023. Thereafter, the complainant respondent No.2-herein had moved an application before the Court below for verification of the surety bonds, property and ID proof/aadhaar card of surety and witnesses furnished by the petitioner-herein(accused). The Court below, after verification of the surety and witness of the accused found that the accused had furnished the false and forged bail bonds and surety bonds by fabrication the documents. Accordingly, the Court below, vide the impugned order, has directed the lodging of the FIR against the accused (petitioners herein) for furnishing the false and fabricated documents as also bogus the bail bonds and surety bonds. Aggrieved, the instant petition has been preferred by the petitioners.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order vide which the Court below directed to lodge FIR against the petitioners is contrary to law. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the Court below has no jurisdiction to even revive the complaint in question once it is withdrawn on the basis of compromise and surety/bail bonds stand discharged. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order is based on conjectures and surmises and hence liable to be set-aside.