9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ond in the sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to satisfaction of Trial Court - petition disposed off. - BAIL APPLN. 61/2020 - - - Dated:- 4-3-2020 - MR. SURESH KUMAR KAIT J. Petitioner Through Mr. Ravinder Tyagi Mr. Yatender Bhardwaj , Advs. Respondent Through Mr.Amit Chadha, APP for State with SI Rahul Kumar, PS Laxmi Nagar, Delhi with complainant Rajender Kukreja in person J U D G M E N T (ORAL) 1. Present petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in case FIR No.272/2018 for offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120- B/34/174-A IPC registered at Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi. 2. Case of prosecution is that on 08.06.2017, 12 complainants had jointly sent thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en Bagh, Kalindi Runj, New Delhi, was handed over to them and they worked there till 2014. Both of them had received ₹ 3,34,290/- and thereafter, accused persons had issued cheque of security amount which has been deposited by the aforesaid persons alongwith three cheques of ₹ 50,000/- and all the cheques have been dishonoured. Accordingly, both complainants named above have filed cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) which are pending disposal. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Ratan Lal Balani and Nita Kukreja have also filed a Civil Suit bearing C.S. No.2284/2016 against M/s Pritika Fashion Pvt. Ltd. and petitioner which was decided by Learned Additional District ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndum of Understanding dated 1.6.2011 with accused persons. The cheque of security amount was received by firm M/s Pritika Fashion Private Limited but alleged Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding dated 1.6.2018 was not signed by accused persons and complainants themselves have forged their signatures and as such there is no agreement. 9. Further, case of petitioner is that petitioner has already returned cheque of security amount to them and complainants have filed case under Section 138 NI Act in Court at Jind, Haryana, where petitioner has been convicted. 10. It is further submitted that complainant No. 6, namely Hemant Khurana, also entered into an Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding with M/s Pritika Fashion Private Limited in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivate Limited and a showroom in Gurgaon was handed over to him and thereafter, his franchisee was terminated and on his complaint, FIR No. 2758/15 has been registered at Police Station-Shakar Pur which is pending disposal. 15. It is further submitted, petitioner has never been called to join investigation in aforesaid FIR No.2758/15 as petitioner has entered into compromise with Anshuman Sharma and has already given copy of compromise agreement to IO and that is why, petitioner was never called to join investigation nor any charge-sheet has been filed in said case. 16. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that complainant No. 12, namely Sonu, has also entered into an Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding with accused and he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d period. However, when Company of the petitioner suffered losses then franchisee of all complainants were terminated and cheques of security amount were returned and for that all complainants have already filed cases under Section 138 of NI Act which are pending disposal before different Courts. 21. As argued by learned counsel for petitioner that when the Civil Suit filed by complainant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 12 was dismissed against petitioner then they all filed present complaint dated 08.06.2017 in the Office of D.C.P., Economic Offence Wing, and on the said complaint, FIR in question was registered on 25.6.2018. 22. Complainant No. 3, namely Ms. Bhawna Balani daughter of complainant No.1, namely Mr. Ratan Lal Balani, served a notice d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registered on 25.6.2018 at Police Station Shakarpur. 26. It is also not in dispute that petitioner appeared before IO at Police Station Shakarpur on 17.10.2018 and he also appeared twice before Economic Offence Wing during inquiry. 27. Charge-sheet has already been filed. Therefore, judicial interrogation of petitioner is no more required. Moreover, he is in judicial custody since 29.7.2019. 28. Keeping in view aforesaid facts, I am of the view that present case is fit for bail. 29. Accordingly, petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to satisfaction of Trial Court. 30. The present petition is allowed and disposed of. 31. Copy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
