Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 474 (PNJ)

Sham Lal v. State Of Punjab

2001-04-30

V.M.JAIN

body2001
JudgmentJudgment 1. This is a petition under Section 439(2), Cr. P. C., filed by the petitioner, seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail, granted to accused-respondents Nos. 2 to 4, by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide order dated 14-8-2000, in FIR 125 dated 8-11-1999 under Section 406, IPC, registered at Police Station, Guru Har Sahai, District Ferozepur. 2. In the present petition under Section 439 (2), Cr. P. C., filed by Sham Lal, petitioner, seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail, granted to accused respondents Nos. 2 to 4, in the aforesaid FIR under Section 406, IPC, it had been alleged that the aforesaid FIR was registered under the orders of this Court. It was alleged that on the registration of the FIR, accused-respondents Nos. 2 to 4 applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court and that the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, granted anticipatory bail to them, vide order dated 1-3-2000. It was alleged that the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to consider that it was a case of embezzlement and even if there was an arbitration clause in the agreement, yet the criminal case was rightly got registered against the rice-millers and it could not be said that it was purely a matter of civil nature. It was further alleged that civil and criminal proceedings, both could go together. It was accordingly prayed that the anticipatory bail, granted to accused respondents Nos. 2 to 4, be cancelled. 3. A reply has been filed by Sh. Manminder Singh, DSP, Jalalabad, admitting therein that the FIR in question was registered after inquiry, in view of the orders passed by this Court. It was alleged that the accused-respondents were granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, on 14-3-2000. It was admitted that it was a case of serious nature. It was alleged that the investigation was being conducted by DIG (Crimes), Chandigarh. 4. In the reply filed by accused-respondent No. 2, it was alleged that the petitioner himself was indulging in illegal activities and was involved in various criminal cases. It was further alleged that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the present petition for cancellation of bail. It was further alleged that the dispute was of civil nature and that the arbitration proceedings were going on and as such the learned Additional Sessions Judge had rightly granted anticipatory bail to the accused-respondents. It was further alleged that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the present petition for cancellation of bail. It was further alleged that the dispute was of civil nature and that the arbitration proceedings were going on and as such the learned Additional Sessions Judge had rightly granted anticipatory bail to the accused-respondents. The other allegations contained in the petition were denied and it was prayed that the presentpetition be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State have submitted before me that in spite of the arbitration clause in the agreement, the accused-respondents had committed criminal breach of trust by embezzling paddy worth lacks/cores of rupees and as such, the accused-respondents should not have been granted anticipatory bail. Reliance was placed on the law laid down by their Lordships of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case, reported as Trisuns Chemical Industry V/s. Rajesh Aggarwal, 1999 0 CrLJ 4325) on the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-respondents have submitted before me that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had rightly granted anticipatory bail to them. It was submitted that in view of the arbitration clause, the criminal proceedings under Section 406, IPC, were not maintainable. Reliance was placed on the law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case reported as Bal Kishan Dass V/s. P.C. Nayar, 1991 0 CrLJ 1837). 7. In 1999 (8) SCC 686 : (1999 Cri LJ 4325) (supra), it was held by their Lordships as under :- "We are unable to appreciate the reasoning that the provision incorporated in the agreement for referring the disputes to arbitration is an effective substitute for a criminal prosecution when the disputed act is an offence. Arbitration is a remedy for affording reliefs to the party affected by breach of the agreement but the arbitrator cannot conduct a trial of any act which amounted to an offence albeit the same act may be connected with the discharge of any function under the agreement. Hence, those are not good reasons for the High Court to axe down the complaint at the threshold itself. The investigating agency should have had the freedom to go into the whole gamut of the allegations and to reach a conclusion of its own. Hence, those are not good reasons for the High Court to axe down the complaint at the threshold itself. The investigating agency should have had the freedom to go into the whole gamut of the allegations and to reach a conclusion of its own. Pre-emption of such investigation would be justified only in very extreme cases as indicated in State of Haryana V/s. Bhajan Lal, 1992 0 CrLJ 527.In this authority, reliance was also placed on the law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case reported as Rajesh Bajaj V/s. State NCT of Delhi, 1999 0 CrLJ 1833. 8. In view of the law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court, in the above mentioned authorities, the civil and criminal proceedings, both can go on side by side. Merely because of the arbitration clause, it cannot be said that the criminal proceedings cannot proceed. The law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court, in the case, reported as 1991 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 374 : (1991 Cri LJ 1837) (supra) and relied upon by learned counsel for the accused-respondents, thus, would have no application to the present case. 9. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in my opinion, no case for cancelling the anticipatory bail, granted to the accused-respondents, is made out, on the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had taken a possible view and had ordered the release of the accused-respondents on anticipatory bail, vide order dated 14-3-200. In my opinion, at this stage, no case for cancelling the anticipatory bail, granted to the accused-respondents, is made out. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.