SURENDER MOHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.51 dated 29.03.2018 registered under Sections 420, 406 IPC at Police Station Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present petition, in nuthsell, are that the FIR was got registered on complaint of Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Limited, which is a Government of Haryana undertaking. The allegations as levelled in the FIR are that the complainant had signed an agreement for custom milling of paddy with the present petitioner. Under the said agreement, the complainant had handed over a quantity of 2368.58 MT of paddy to the petitioner. As per the agreement and as per the standards of milling, the petitioner was required to supply the specified quantity of rice after milling the paddy. The petitioner supplied only 948.83 MT of rice and failed to deliver 638.11 MT of rice, which he was under obligation to deliver. Therefore, the petitioner has embezzled the value 1 of 5 CRM-M-43226 of 2019 (O&M) -2- worth the rice which is not supplied by him, which comes to Rs.1,73,72,685.13. Besides this, gunny bags worth Rs.5.87 lakhs were also found embezzled by the petitioner. Besides this, there are certain other overhead charges. Accordingly, a total amount of Rs.2,30,54,475.93 worth the value has been embezzled by the petitioner. With these allegations, the FIR was registered against the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter is contractual in nature. The arbitration proceedings are already going on between the petitioner and the complainant. The complaint under Section 138 of NI Act also has been initiated by the complainant- Corporation for default of the cheques, which the petitioner had given in lieu of the alleged embezzled amount. Still further, even the proceedings for attachment of properties of the petitioner have been initiated. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is already suffering and the rights of the parties are yet to be crystalized in the arbitration proceedings. The case is based on the documentary evidence. Therefore, the custody of the petitioner is not required. Hence, the petitioner deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.