Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2611 (PNJ)

Saurabh Chauhan v. State Of Punjab

2019-09-20

SHEKHER DHAWAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : Shekher Dhawan, J. Present petitions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are for grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.11 dated 23.02.2019 under Sections 406,420,120-B IPC to which Sections 467,468,471 IPC were added later on, registered at Police Station Badali Alla Singh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. 2. The matter relates to complaint having been made by one Jaswant Kaur against the petitioners and others and as per the complainant, Surinder Singh alias Surinder Dhiman met her and disclosed that there was a big company claiming that investment in the said company shall give the amount equivalent to double the amount after some period. Petitioner, Surinder Singh alias Surinder Dhiman arranged the meeting with higher officials of the Company and on the assurance and persuasion of Surinder Singh alias Surinder Dhiman, the complainant was introduced to Pankaj Kumar Sharma and at that time, wife of Pankaj Kumar Sharma also accompanied, who assured the complainant that they had good relations with the higher officials of PIRAD Group and believing the statement of said persons to be correct, she made payment of Rs.15.00 Lakhs after withdrawing the said amount from the bank. She had also paid a sum of Rs.2.76 Crores through banks and Rs.2.25 Crores in cash at Bassi Pathana. Thereafter, when the complainant demanded her money, the above persons were delaying the matter and simply took the plea that no amount was due towards them and started threatening the complainant. 3. Learned counsel representing Saurabh Chauhan (Petitioner in CRM-M-34033-2019) contended that the petitioner is one of the Directors of PIRAD Enterprises Private Limited, but the Company is not involved in any finance business. They had never taken any money of the complainant on the pretext of doubling the amount. More so, the version of FIR is not believable that such a huge amount was paid to the petitioner Company without taking any receipt. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the complainant had also business dealings with the Company of petitioner, Saurabh Chauhan and during the course of deals of antiques and unique items, there was some dispute and thereafter, settlement took place and a sum of Rs.42.00 Lakhs was paid as agreed between the parties and copy of compromise is place on record as Annexure P/2. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. 5. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. 5. Learned counsel representing Surinder Singh alias Surinder Dhiman, (Petitioner in CRM-M-36574-2019) contended that complainant and the present petitioner had invested the money in PIRAD company and thereafter, there was some dispute between the PIRAD company and the petitioner, but the dispute was settled and Saurabh Chauhan, co-accused agreed to pay Rs.50.00 lakhs to the present petitioner through cheque. But there are no allegations in the complaint that any payment was made to the petitioner, Surinder Singh alias Surinder Dhiman. More over, on the basis of compromise, Annexure P/3, there are no allegations that the petitioner cheated the complainant. 6. Learned counsel representing both the petitioners, contended that the petitioners are ready to join the investigation. 7. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel representing the complainant contended that in fact, the matter relates to cheating and fraud of Rs.3.50 Crores with complainant Jaswant Kaur on the basis of false inducement and representations having been made and custodial interrogation of the petitioners would be required. So, the present petitions be dismissed. 8. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and appraisal of record of this case files , this Court is of the considered view that as per copy of compromise, Annexure P/3 (in CRMM-34033-2019) a sum of Rs.42.00 lakhs was paid and as per compromise, Annexure P/2 (in CRM-M-36574-2019), Rs.50 Lakhs was paid. Apart from that there are certain allegations with regard to cash transactions having been made between the parties, but there is no document available on the file indicating payment of the same. 9. In view of the above, the present petitions stand allowed and the petitioners directed to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438(2) Cr. P.C. In the event of their arrest, the petitioners are ordered to be released on pre-arrest bail on their furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. 10. The petitions stand allowed in the above terms. 11. Any observation made herein above shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.