AMARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Crl. Misc. No. 1234-M of 1999 whereby Amarjit Singh and Harpreet Singh-petitioners have prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to them in case FIR No. 353 dated 30.12.1998 registered under Sections 323/383/356/406/420/506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Saraba Nagar, Ludhiana.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that Rajesh Gupta son of Shri Ved Parkash, partner of M/s Nidhi Woollen Mill, Ludhiana is manufacturer of yarn and hosiery and is carrying on his business under the name and style of Nidhi Woollen Mill. Amarjit Singh-accused is the sole proprietor of M/s K.P. Hosiery and M/s Harpeet Exports and Harpeet Singh-accused is his son. According to Rajesh Gupta, accused used to purchase yarn and hosiery from him on credit. Accused used to make payment afterwards. Accused purchased hosiery goods vide bill No. 1364 dated 9.10.1998 in the name of K.P. Hosiery for Rs. 20,05,812/-. Accused purchased hosiery goods in the name of Harpreet Exports vide bill No. 1364 dated 9.10.1998 for Rs. 2,28,000/-. Accused No. 1 undertook to make the payment within 15 days. After about 15 days i.e. on 25.10.1998, Rajesh Gupta approached the accused for payment but he gave out he did not have the necessary money with him and he would make the payment in due course of time. Thereafter, Rajesh Gupta approached him a number of times at the factory of Harpreet Exports at village Dadd and also at the residence in Model Gram. Each time he was put off by the accused on one pretext or the other. On 25.12.1998 he went to the factory of the accused situated at village Dadd Nakhwas Road, Ludhiana at about 5.45 p.m. and asked for payment. Amarjit Singh and his son were sitting there and there were other workers also in the factory. He asked for payment. Harpreet Singh-accused No. 2 gave out that he did not have necessary money and he should contact him after some time. He objected to this behaviour saying that he was putting him off time and again and payment was not being made to him. Amarjit Singh became furious and told him that he had no money. On this there was exchange of hot words. Amarjit Singh told him that he could give only Rs. two lacs in full and final settlement. He refused to have Rs. two lacs in full and final settlement of a claim of Rs. 22,33,812/-. Again there was exchange of hot words. Thereafter, he left the factory at about 6.30 p.m. When he reached the Sacred Heart Convent School after crossing the railway line, he was waylaid by Amarjit Singh, Harpreet Singh, accused No. 1 and 2 and their companion. At that time they were in their car. They intercepted his scooter. Amarjit Singh took out pistol. He asked him to drive his scooter towards the Sacred Heart Convent School Road. He was followed by Harpreet Singh and their companion in their car. When the scooter reached the third gate of the Sacred Heart Convent School, he was called upon by Amarjit Singh to stop the scooter. In the meantime Harpreet Singh accompanied by their companion came out of the car and at pistol point they gave him beating and demanded the receipts and when he refused, he took his brief case, which contained his letter heads, purchase bills, cheque book of Oriental Bank of Commerce and Rs. 45,000/- in cash. Harpreet Singh took out two blank papers from the car and threatened him at the point of pistol putting him in fear of death and injuries, forcibly took his signatures on two blank papers. They threatened him in case he pursued in demanding the payment or informed the police about the incident, he and his family would be eliminated. 2A. Originally, it was a complaint before the Magistrate who ordered the police to investigate and register the case and this is how the case was registered.

(3.) AMARJIT Singh and Harpreet Singh are in business. Rajesh Kumar is also in business. They have business dealings with each other. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this complaint/FIR is a counter- blast to the filing of the suit against M/s Nidhi Woollen Mills and Rajesh Kumar and complaint against Rajesh Kumar and Parveen Kumar.