High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Manish Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 7 December, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manish Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 7 December, 2009
CRM No. M 32242 of 2009                                                    1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH
                                       --

                                CRM No. M 32242 of 2009
                                Date of decision: 07, 2009


Manish Kumar                                         ........ petitioner

            Versus

State of Haryana                                 .......Respondent(s)


Coram:      Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
                     -.-

Present:    Mr. Surinder Dagar, Advocate
            for the petitioner

            Mr. Pradeep Virk, DAG, Haryana
            for respondent-State

            Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate
            for the complainant
                   -.-
      1.    Whether Reporters of local papers may be
            allowed to see the judgement?

      2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not?

      3.    Whether the judgement should be reported in
            the Digest?

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that legal notice was

issued on 18.08.2009. In the aforesaid legal notice, there was no mention

about the amount over and above Rs.1,00,000/-. Whereas, in the FIR which

was lodged on 24.10.2009, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- has been shown. It

is further stated that in case this amount had been paid to the petitioner, the

same would have been mentioned in the legal notice.
CRM No. M 32242 of 2009 2

It is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for

the complainant that the legal notice was issued only qua the bounced

cheques and not with respect to the remaining amount for which no cheque

was issued. The matter is still at the investigating stage. The said money was

paid to the petitioner by misleading the complainant with a promise that he

shall be sent abroad. However, the petitioner embezzled the aforesaid amount

and nor sent the complainant abroad.

No ground for bail is made out.

Dismissed.

(Nirmaljit Kaur)
Judge
December 07, 2009
mohan