Crl. Misc. No. M-18903 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-18903 of 2009
Date of Decision : July 30, 2009
Varun Kanojia .... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab.
* * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Varun Kanojia has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in
case FIR No.18 dated 14.02.2008, under Sections 379, 420, 465, 467, 471,
468, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police
Station Division No.1, Jalandhar.
According to the prosecution version, the petitioner was
employee of the complainant. The petitioner left the job of the complainant
on 20.05.2007. On checking bank account statement on 23.06.2007, the
complainant found that two cheques bearing No.450405 and No.450410
both dated 09.06.2007 for Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/-stood debited in
the complainant’s account on 11.06.2007. The said cheques were in the
Crl. Misc. No. M-18903 of 2009 2
name of Chawla Poly Products, but the complainant had never issued the
said cheques, nor the complainant had any dealing with the said company.
On checking, it was found that a complete cheque-book containing cheque
nos. from 450401 to 450500 was missing. The complainant primarily
suspected the petitioner to have stolen the aforesaid cheque-book and used
the two cheques out of it for withdrawing Rs.3,50,000/- because the
petitioner had been conducting bank dealings of the complainant during his
employment. The complainant also expressed suspicion on two other
persons namely Pankaj Mehendru, who had also since left the complainant’s
organization, and Jatinder Chawla, who was still in employment with the
complainant’s company.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner
has been named only on the basis of suspicion. However, in a case of theft
of cheque-book, the complainant could name anybody only on the basis of
suspicion because the complainant had not seen anybody committing theft
of the cheque-book or withdrawing the amount by using two cheques out of
it. Moreover, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Satpal Singh,
states that as per letter given by the Chief Manager of the Bank, the
aforesaid missing cheque-book had been given to the petitioner on behalf of
the complainant. It is also stated by learned State counsel that the amount
of aforesaid cheques was not credited to the account of Chawla Poly
Products and rather the cheques were encashed as bearer cheques.
Keeping in view all the circumstances, I do not find it to be a fit
case for releasing the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The petition is
accordingly dismissed, but without meaning to express any opinion on
merits.
Before parting with the order, it has to be observed with
concern that Pankaj Mehendru and Jatinder Chawla were also named as
suspects in the FIR, but learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI
Crl. Misc. No. M-18903 of 2009 3
Satpal Singh, states that these two suspects have not been interrogated
during investigation of the FIR. Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar
shall look into this aspect of the matter and shall take appropriate
disciplinary action against the defaulting official for not joining or
interrogating the aforesaid two suspects in the aforesaid FIR.
A copy of the order be sent to Senior Superintendent of Police,
Jalandhar for necessary action.
July 30, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE