MAN MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is claiming anticipatory bail as Police Station, Civil Lines, Ludhiana has registered a criminal case under Sections 420/506 IPC vide FIR 369 dated 8.12.1997 against him.

(2.) PETITIONER 's contention is that complainant Shri Parkash has lodged the afore-mentioned report against him alleging that petitioner had played a fraud and misappropriated amount of Rs. sixty lacs. Petitioner is NRI and is residing in Dubai. He never came to Ludhiana in the year 1994. Therefore, the question of his entering into any agreement with the complainant in the year 1994 in Ludhiana does not arise. He has no business dealings with the complainant. Even the cheques issued by him are not in the name of the complainant but they are in the name of Saleh Abdulla Hamad, UAE. He also contends that even if certain cheques issued by the petitioner are not encashed by the Bank, that will not amount to an offence under Section 420 IPC as at the time when cheques were issued he never induced the complainant to deliver any goods to him. If there is any old business transaction under which certain amount is to be paid to the complainant for the goods alleged to have been supplied by him to the petitioner, it is a civil dispute for which complainant has no right to lodge FIR against him under sections 420/506 IPC. The petitioner has also placed on record photo copy of his Passport to show that in the year 1994 he never came to India.

(3.) DURING arguments, the complainant has also placed on record a copy of the agreement entered into between him and Saleh Abdullah Hamad, UAE National- Learned counsel explained that petitioner being Indian national is not allowed to hold any trade licence in UAE; therefore, he entered into this agreement under which Saleh Abdullah Hamad allowed him as investor of his trade licence No. 140336 to carry on the business of foodstuff under the trade name of Saleh Abdullah Hamad Trading Establishment. The complainant is doing this business under this agreement as Investor, therefore, he supplied foodstuff to the accused petitioner under this trade licence. The petitioner came to India in 1994 and at that time he and the petitioner entered into an agreement for the supply of foodstuffs to the petitioner at Dubai. In pursuance of this agreement, complainant was supplying foodstuffs to the petitioner at Dubai. Petitioner issued cheques worth about sixty lacs in the name of Saleh Abdullah Hamad Trading Establishment but they were meant for him as he was operating this trade licence as an Investor under the aforementioned agreement. No cheque could be encashed and thereby the petitioner has cheated him and has mis-appropriated the goods supplied by him to the petitioner under the agreement of sale. Learned counsel for the complainant also submitted that once he met the petitioner in Ludhiana and asked him to make payment. He threatened him at the point of pistol. Thus according to him prima facie both the offences are made out. The petitioner is avoiding arrest.