Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 6 (HP)

Rajeshwar Sabharwal v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-01-01

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT : - Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner is seeking bail in case FIR No. 102/2012 dated 1.12.2012 under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P.. 2. According to the petitioner, one Chuni Lal Chauhan filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 1.12.2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Kasauli. In sequel to the order dated 1.12.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, FIR No.102/2012 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Parwanoo under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is averred in the petition that Chuni Lal Chauhan is a wholesale trader of apples etc. and runs his business in Parwanoo under the name and style of M/s Universal Apples Associates. He had business dealings with the company of the petitioner, i.e. M/s Tara Business Group Pvt. Ltd.. Chuni Lal Chauhan had supplied apples and mangoes to the company of the petitioner between 16.1.2011 to 1.3.2012. Petitioner has purchased fruits worth Rs.46,73,15,977/- from Chuni Lal Chauhan. It is also averred in the petition that according to Chuni Lal Chauhan, the petitioner has paid only Rs.25,43,99,480/- and the remaining amount has not been paid. 3 Petitioner has earlier approached this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by filing Cr.MPM No.1165/2012. The bail application was dismissed by this Court on 25.2.2013 since neither the petitioner joined the investigation nor was he present in the Court. The petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order dated 25.2.2013 by way of filing Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.2295/2013. It was withdrawn by the petitioner on 1.4.2013. Thereafter, petitioner approached this Court by filing the petition bearing Cr.MMO No.95/2013 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings. It was dismissed by this Court on 22.8.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing Cr.MPM No.11684/2013, which was withdrawn on 15.11.2013 with liberty reserved to move fresh application. 4 It is evident from the facts enumerated here-in-above that the petitioner has neither joined the investigation nor was present in the Court, as directed, which led to dismissal of his application on 25.2.2013. Thereafter, Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.2295/2013 preferred before Hon’ble Supreme Court was withdrawn by the petitioner on 1.4.2013. He has unsuccessfully challenged criminal proceedings initiated against him by filing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. It was dismissed by this Court on 22.8.2013. Thereafter, Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.2295/2013 preferred before Hon’ble Supreme Court was withdrawn by the petitioner on 1.4.2013. He has unsuccessfully challenged criminal proceedings initiated against him by filing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. It was dismissed by this Court on 22.8.2013. Petitioner filed yet another application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before this Hon’ble Court, which was withdrawn on 15.11.2013. Once the petitioner has been granted the interim bail, it was incumbent upon him to join the investigation. 5 Mr. Jagdish Vatsh, learned Advocate, submits that the petitioner was harassed by the police personnel. However, he has not led any tangible evidence to establish this contention. In case petitioner’s mother was sick, as averred in the application, it was always open for the petitioner to bring this fact to the notice of this Court by moving an appropriate application. Filing of bail applications repeatedly amounts to gross misuse of process of law. 6 Status report filed by the respondent-State is also perused. Prima facie, involvement of petitioner in the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be ruled out. The petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail at this stage. 7 In view of observations and discussion, made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. 8 The observations made in this order are for disposal of this petition only and the same shall not be treated as expression of opinion on merits of the case.