Allowed

Pardeep Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Apr 2013CRM-M/10648/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment concerns a petition for anticipatory bail regarding allegations of cheating and forgery under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The court granted protection from custody due to a 7-year delay in filing the complaint while directing the petitioner to join the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted protection from custody; directed to join investigation and appear before the investigating officer.

Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Punjab — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

CRM-M No. 10648 of 2013 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M No. 10648 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.04.2013

¶5

Pradeep Kumar

¶6

........Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Punjab

¶9

......... Respondent

¶10

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari

¶11

Present: Mr. Amit Dhawan , Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms.Amarjeet Khurana, Addl. AG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶17

Ajay Tewari, J. (Oral):

¶18

This is a petition for anticipatory bail filed in case bearing FIR

¶19

No. 10 dated 02.03.2013, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar.

¶20

The allegation against the petitioner is that he had promised to send the son of the complainant abroad but had not fulfilled his obligation and even not returned the money.

¶21

On 03.04.2013 the following contention was noticed:-

¶22

“Learned counsel states that apart from the fact that there is 7 years delay even the affidavit relied upon by the complainant is apparently forged.”

¶23

CRM-M No. 10648 of 2013 (O&M)

¶24

¶25

Learned Addl.AG, on instructions from ASI Ashwani Kumar,,

¶26

has accepted the factual assertion that the alleged offence took place 7 years ago. She, however, disputes the assertion that the affidavit is a forgery.

¶27

In my opinion the mere fact that the complainant waited for 7 years to report the matter (for whatever reason) would entitle the petitioner to protection from custody. However, he is directed to join the investigation. Let him appear before the investigating officer on or before 17.04.2013 between 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. and on any other date on which the investigating officer may require his presence. On his appearance the investigating officer shall release him on anticipatory bail to his satisfaction subject to the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶28

Petition stands disposed of.

¶29

Since the main case has been decided, the pending Criminal Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶30

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE

¶31

April 10, 2013 sunita

Pardeep Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pardeep Kumar 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

Gram Panchayat Village Binjal Vs Director C/H Pb.Etc.

Manjit Kaur Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Pinki & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Longowalia Yarns Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Bhajno Vs Sohan Lal and Ors.

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