Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 631 (PNJ)

Satnam Singh v. State Of Punjab

2000-06-02

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. F.I.R. No. 56 dated 4.4.2000 has been registered at Police Station Division No.1, Jalandhar under Sections 406, 506 and 120-B I.P.C. on the statement of Ramanjeet Singh alias Micky wherein the following material allegations are found : 2. The family of the complainant is cultivating and producing potatoes, sunflower, wheat, paddy etc. in an extent of 5000 to 5500 acres. They used to sell their crops to M/s. Harcharan Singh Mohinder Singh, Shop No. 91, Grain Market, Jalandhar with whom they had a verbal agreement. Approximately a sum of Rs. 47/48 lakhs is outstanding and was demanded. Initially they were saying that they will pay, but then started threatening. For the last 2/3 days, they have run away by locking the firm, shop and the house. 3. Petitioner-Satnam Singh approached the Sessions Court, Jalandhar for bail in anticipation of arrest, but his request was declined. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for bail in anticipation of arrest. 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, the State and the complainant and perused the records on file. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the F.I.R. has been lodged against the firm - M/s. Harcharan Singh Mohinder Singh, but the real name of the firm is M/s. Mohinder Singh Harcharan Singh. He contends that the partners of the firm are Mohinder Singh, (2) Harcharan Singh and (3) Gurbaksh Singh, of which Harcharan Singh and Gurbaksh Singh are the brothers of the petitioner. But the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has no concern with the above said partnership, but is running his own business under the name - M/s. Miglani Finance Company in partnership with his wife. The copy of the said partnership deed has also been produced as annexure P-2. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that petitioner is not specifically named in the F.I.R. and there is also no specific allegation that any entrustment was made to the petitioner. He also points out that there is also no allegation of misappropriation by the petitioner and, therefore, no offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. He also points out that there is also no allegation of misappropriation by the petitioner and, therefore, no offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that there is no specific allegation in the F.I.R. that the petitioner threatened the complainant and, therefore, no offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is also made out against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that if at all there is any liability, it is only a civil liability against the partnership of which the petitioner is not a partner and therefore, in no way, the petitioner can be implicated in this case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the records of the firm have been taken by the police, three partners of the firm have also been arrested, and there are no grounds for arresting the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the State concedes that petitioner is not the partner of the firm against which the present F.I.R. has been registered. He also states that correct name of the firm is M/s. Mohinder Singh Harcharan Singh. But he contends that produce worth Rs. 47 lakhs has been supplied to the firm and when the complainant went to the firm to get the money, Harcharan Singh stated that money has been invested in Miglani Finance Company. According to the learned counsel for the State, he complainant then met the petitioner who told the complainant that double the money will be paid to him, but did not return the money. The learned counsel for the complainant stated that he does not know whether the petitioner is a partner of the firm against which the F.I.R. has been registered, though he stated that the petitioner is also running both the businesses. According to him, the police did not record a proper F.I.R. and a supplementary statement of the complainant has been recorded after the complaint to the S.P. The learned counsel for the complainant has also produced a copy of the supplementary statement as annexure A-1, wherein the complainant has stated that on 4.4.2000 when his statement was recorded, he was not having the full information. He has also stated that Satnam Singh and others told that the money realised from the sale of the products would be deposited in Miglani Finance Company which is run by Satnam Singh himself and that the complainant and others would be given double the rate of interest paid by the banks. He has also stated that the accused told that the money due to them has been invested in the business of Satnam Singh and for his assets. He has also stated that Satnam Singh and Gurbaksh Singh threatened them by stating that who ever demands the money, will be murdered. 8. But this is a case where there is nothing before the Court to show that the petitioner is a partner of the firm M/s. Harcharan Singh Mohinder Singh, as named in the F.I.R. or Mohinder Singh Harcharan Singh which, according to the petitioner and the State, is the correct name of the firm. While the learned counsel for the State conceded that petitioner is not the partner of the firm, the learned counsel for the complainant only stated that the petitioner is also running both the businesses. But no material has been placed before the Court at this stage to show that the petitioner has any connection with the firm against which the FIR has been recorded. In the FIR, there is no allegation that anything was entrusted to the petitioner or that the petitioner misappropriated anything. But in the supplementary statement, it has been stated by the complainant that the complainant and others gave their agricultural products for sale to the shop of the accused, that when they went to receive payment for the same, Satnam Singh and other accused told them that their money would be deposited in Miglani Finance Company run by Satnam Singh. The counsel for the petitioner contends that Miglani Finance Company is a partnership firm in which himself and his wife are partners. In the FIR, there is no reference to Miglani Finance Company at all. In the supplementary statement only, it has been stated that the accused and Satnam Singh stated that the money realised from the sale of the products belonging to the complainant and others would be deposited in Miglani Finance Company. There is nothing to show that the money was, in fact, deposited in the said finance company. 9. In the supplementary statement only, it has been stated that the accused and Satnam Singh stated that the money realised from the sale of the products belonging to the complainant and others would be deposited in Miglani Finance Company. There is nothing to show that the money was, in fact, deposited in the said finance company. 9. In these circumstances, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 10. The petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner on the allegations found in FIR No. 56 dated 4.4.2000 registered at Police Station Division No.1, Jalandhar under Section 406, 506 and 120-B I.P.C., the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. However, the petitioner shall join investigation on notice from the I.O., the giving him sufficient time. The petitioner shall also abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Petition allowed.