Dismissed

Sarabjit Singh Paras v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Jan 2012CRM-M/227/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court found the allegations serious, noting the petitioner failed to explain the transaction details. It observed that bonafide cheque dishonor cases typically proceed under the Negotiable Instruments Act, not for cheating offenses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC was dismissed.

Sarabjit Singh Paras Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-227 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-227 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 06, 2012

¶5

Sarabjit Singh Paras.

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

.... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶14

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶15

Sarabjit Singh Paras, petitioner has applied for pre-arrest bail by way of this petition, brought under section 438 Cr. P.C. in a case registered by way of FIR No. 205 dated 15.10.2011 at Police Station City Moga, District Moga for an offence punishable under sections 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case against the petitioner is false. According to him, the petitioner's father had money transactions with the complainant and on account of those transactions, he had issued cheques to the complainant, which have been dishonoured. According to him, the complainant instead of moving under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short “the Act”) has concocted this false version and lodged this report.

¶17

Crl. Misc. No.M-227 of 2012

¶18

¶19

It is a case where the complaint is against the petitioner, his wife and his father. They are said to have cheated Mandeep Kaur, complainant of Rs. 11,70,000/- on the promise of arranging to send her to Canada. It is the case where after a long lapse of time, when the complainant was not sent to Canada, she had put pressure on the petitioner and others for return of money, that she was given two cheques drawn at Punjab National Bank, for Rs. 5,70,000/- and Rs. 6,00,000/which were dishonoured on presentation.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has been asked to specify as to what kind of money transactions had been there between the complainant and the father of the petitioner. He was also asked to specify as to what kind of liability was there against which the two cheques have been issued. He had no answers on this aspect. It cannot be believed, if there would have been bonafide money transactions between the parties and the cheques, issued to discharge the monetary liability, had been dishonoured, the person aggrieved would lodge a report under section 406 and 420 IPC instead of proceeding under section 138 of the Act, where the amount would stand easily recovered besides punishing of the offender.

¶21

In these circumstances, looking to the seriousness of the allegations made against the petitioner and others, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of concession of pre arrest bail to the petitioner. The petition is, consequently, dismissed.

¶22

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶23

January 06, 2012 som

Sarabjit Singh Paras v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarabjit Singh Paras v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudarshan Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.(Allowed on 5.1.2012)

Rakesh Bhargava & Anr. Vs Satpal Jindal

Sawinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jagtar Singh & Ors. Vs Div. Commissioner, Patiala & Ors.

Girdhari Lal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Raghbir Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.