Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
CRM-M No.8969 of 2020 1
203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.8969 of 2020
Date of Decision:29.07.2021
Satish Kumar ……Petitioner
Vs
State of Haryana …..Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present: Mr.Piyush Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajat Gautam, DAG, Haryana.
****
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)
The case has been taken up for hearing through
video conferencing.
Perusal of order dated 02.03.2020 would show that
due to typographical error in 2nd line of the order, word
“complainant” has appeared in place of word “petitioner”.
Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction in the
order.
Petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail under
Section 438 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.025 dated
28.01.2020 registered under Section 406 IPC, at Police Station
Line Par Bahadurgarh.
1 of 3
31-07-2021 17:21:25 :::
CRM-M No.8969 of 2020 2
Notice of motion was issued on 02.03.2020 with the
observation that none of the investors had come forward to
allege any incriminatory allegation against the petitioner. On
15.06.2012, a ‘Franchisee Memorandum of Understanding’ was
executed between the complainant and Sahara India, whereby
the complainant was appointed as Branch Manager of the
company. Conduct of the complainant was not found to be
conducive to the affairs of the company and he was suspended
on 25.09.2017. Petitioner was appointed as Branch Manager in
his place. The company had not denied the delay in returning
the maturity amount. Stand of the company was that some of
the investors had already received the amount of interest on
delayed payments. Petitioner was not responsible for causing
any delay in respect of payments as he was responsible for
managing affairs of the company by accepting the deposits from
the interested investors and place the same in the account
maintained by the company. On maturity, the company used to
issue vouchers of maturity amount due to the investors and
would furnish the details of cheques/ demand drafts etc. for
making payment to the investors. Petitioner could only operate
the accounts of receiving the vouchers from the head office and
then to pay to the investors. In view of aforesaid procedure, the
petitioner has no such power and authority to deal with the
accounts of the investors without approval of the head office as
2 of 3
31-07-2021 17:21:25 :::
CRM-M No.8969 of 2020 3
the financial transactions are regulated by SEBI as per orders of
the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
compliance of the order dated 02.03.2020, petitioner has joined
the investigation to the entire satisfaction of the Investigating
Officer.
Learned State counsel, on instructions from SI
Mahesh Pal, admits the aforesaid fact and submits that the
petitioner is no more required for further investigation in the
case. Learned State counsel further states that even challan
has been submitted.
In view of above, interim order dated 02.03.2020 is
made absolute, however, the petitioner shall keep on appearing
before the trial Court regularly.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
29.07.2021 JUDGE
Amandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
31-07-2021 17:21:25 :::