Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- AJAY TEWARI
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 420
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Judgment
Mr. S.S. Gill, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the complainant. **** These two aforesaid petitions have been filed by the petitioners. CRM-M No. 13067 of 2010 is for the grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 180 dated 5.8.2009, under Section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Tarantaran City and the CRM-M No. 13031 of 2010 is for quashing of the aforesaid FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. On 23.05.2011 the following contention was noticed:- “ The petitioner who is present in person has given a photocopy of the complaint made by the complainant. On this complaint the number has been put as 1489-A-DPO dated
16.07.2009. On the following page the complaint has been signed on 17.07.2009.” Now an attempt has been made to explain the said error. In my opinion it cannot be said to be entirely satisfactory (though its veracity will be tested during the trial). In this view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Let the petitioners appear before the investigating officer on 10.08.2011 between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. The investigating officer shall release them on bail to his satisfaction, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Petition for anticipatory bail bearing CRM-M No. 13067 of CRM-M Nos. 13067 and 13031 of 2010 -2- 2010 stands disposed of. As regards the petition for quashing, it is not disputed that the cheques in question were signed by the petitioners. Moreover, it cannot be said at this stage that the allegations made in the complaint do not reveal an offence. In case the petitioners are able to establish that the cheques were indeed stolen or that they had not in any case handed them over to complainant they may be acquitted, but no ground is made out for quashing of the aforesaid FIR. Petition for quashing bearing CRM-M No. 13031 of 2010 is dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected CRM-M No. 13031 of 2010. July 26, 2011 sunita ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.