IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-________ OF 2020

Vikas Sud

……………Petitioner
Versus

State of Punjab and Another

……………Respondent

INDEX
Sr. Particulars Date Page Court
No. Fee
A. Urgent Form 19.11.2020 A
1. Petition U/s 438 Cr.PC 19.11.2020 1-6
2. Affidavit in Support 19.11.2020 7-8
3. Annexure P-1 23.04.2015 9-14
(Complaint)
4. Annexure P-2 (Order 24.09.2019 15
passed by Ld. SDJM,
Phagwara
5. Annexure P-3 (Order 12.02.2020 16-18
passed by Ld. ASJ,
Kapurthala)
6. Power of Attorney 18.11.2020 19

Note: 1. Any other case: Nil

2. Copy supplied to AG, Punjab.

PLACE: CHANDIGARH (NARINDER S. LUCKY)

DATED: 19.11.2020 Advocate (P-1317/2003)
Counsel for the Petitioner
 1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB

AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M _________ of 2020

MEMO OF PARTIES

Vikas Sud, aged about 48 years son of son of Roshan Lal

Sud, resident of MIG-250, Sector-4, Parwanoo, District

Solan (HP).

...........Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Punjab

2. Sh. Alok Sethi son of Sh. SP Sethi, age about 27 years,

resident of 56-B, Model Town, Phagwara, District

Kapurthala

..........Respondent

PLACE: CHANDIGARH (NARINDER S. LUCKY)

DATED: 19.11.2020 ADVOCATE
Counsel for the Petitioner
 2

First Petition under Section 438

Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory

bail to the petitioner in case

Complaint No. 22 dated

23.04.2015, under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act filed

before the Court of Ld. ACJM,

Kasauli, District Solan (HP),

which was later on transferred to

the Court of Ld. JMIC, Phagwara,

District Kapurthala, in the

interest of justice.

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the petitioner is resident of above mentioned

address and the above noted complaint is pending before

the Court of Ld. JMIC, Phagwara (Kapurthala). Therefore he

is competent to file present petition U/s 438 Cr.P.C. before

this Hon’ble Court.

2. That the petitioner has been falsely implicated in

the above noted case whereas as he has not committed any

offence. The copy of Complaint dated 23.04.2015 is

attached herewith as Annexure P-1.

 3

3. That from the bare perusal of the complaint, it

clearly shows that vague allegations have been leveled

against the petitioner. Neither he has induced or promised

the complainant for the allotment of Gas Agency.

4. That in fact, the cheque in question has been

misused by the complainant and to show the liability on the

part of the complainant, he has concocted the false story.

5. That initially the complaint was filed at in the

Court of SDJM, Phagwara (Kapurthala), but the same was

transferred to the Court of Ld. ACJM, Kasauli, District

Solan (HP). But again the complaint was transferred to the

Court of Ld. SDJM, Phagwara (Kapurthala) as per the

amendment made in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India.

6. That the petitioner came to the Court of SDJM,

Phagwara to attend the hearing of the case but he was not

able to trace out the date of hearing, despite the fact he was

willing the face the trial.

7. That the petitioner has engaged a local Counsel

at Phagwara for the purpose of defending the complaint

pending before the Court of Ld. SDJM, Phagwara.

8. That the petitioner inquired from the Lower Court

Consul about the date of hearing, but he was not conveyed

any date of hearing or listing of the case.

 4

9. That in the first week of February-2020, the

petitioner came to know that he has been declared

proclaimed person by the Ld. Trial Court, Phagwara vide

order dated 24.09.2019. A copy of the order dated

24.09.2019 is attached herewith as Annexure P-2.

10. That immediately the petitioner moved an

application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Session

Court, Kapurthala, but vide order dated 12.02.2020, the

bail application of the petitioner was dismissed without

considering the facts that the petitioner was never served

and procedure under Section 82 Cr.PC has not been

properly followed. A copy of the order dated 12.02.2020 is

attached herewith as Annexure P-3.

11. That the petitioner is ready to surrender before

the Ld. Trial Court and is ready to furnish fresh bail bonds

and will attend each and every date of hearing of the case.

12. That the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act is bailable in nature and the petitioner is

having apprehension that he may be send behind bars

because has been declared proclaimed offender.

13. That no useful purpose would be served by

sending the petitioner behind the bars as it has been held

in various judgments passed by the Hon'ble High Court as

 5

well as Hon'ble Apex Court that the accused cannot be send

behind bars in a bailable offence.

14. That the petitioner will not temper with the

prosecution evidence in any manner and moreover, nothing

is to be recovered from the petitioner. Therefore, his

custodial interrogation is not required.

15. That as per the instructions, the petitioner is not

involved in any other criminal activities/cases and he has

not been declared proclaimed offender by any Court.

16. That no such or similar petition has earlier been

filed by the petitioner either in this Hon’ble Court or Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India, nor any similar such application is

pending before Sessions Court, Phagwara at the time of

filing the present petition.

It is therefore, respectfully prayed that present

petition may kindly be allowed and petitioner may kindly be

granted anticipatory bail in case Complaint No. 22 dated

23.04.2015, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act filed before the Court of Ld. ACJM, Kasauli, District

Solan (HP), which was later on transferred to the Court of

Ld. JMIC, Phagwara, District Kapurthala, in the interest of

justice.
 6

It is, further respectfully prayed that arrest of the

petitioner may kindly be stayed, during the pendency of

present petition, in the interest of justice.

It is, further prayed that the petitioner may

kindly be exempted from filing the certified copies of

annexures attached with the petition.

Note: Affidavit attached.

PLACE: CHANDIGARH (NARINDER S. LUCKY)

DATED: 19.11.2020 ADVOCATE
Counsel for the Petitioner
 7

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-________ OF 2020

Vikas Sud

……………Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and Another

……………Respondent

Affidavit of Vikas Sud, aged about

48 years son of son of Roshan Lal

Sud, resident of MIG-250,

Sector-4, Parwanoo, District

Solan (HP).

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly

affirm and declare as under:

1. That the deponent is filing accompanying petition

before this Hon’ble High Court and the same is likely

to be succeed on the strength of grounds mentioned

therein.

2. That the contents of the petition have been read over

to the deponent, which are true and correct to the

knowledge of the deponent and no part of it is false

and noting has been concealed therein.

 8

3. That no such or similar petition has earlier been filed

by the deponent either in this Hon’ble court or in the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

CHANDIGARH
DATED: 19.11.2020 Deponent

VERIFICATION:

Verified that the contents of my above affidavit are true

and correct to the best of my knowledge and no part of it is

false and nothing has been concealed therein.

CHANDIGARH
DATED: 19.11.2020 Deponent
 9

ANNEXURE P-1

In the Court of Ld. Addition Chief Judicial Magistrate

Kasauli, District Solan (HP)

Sh. Alok Sethi son of Sh. SP Sethi, age about 27 years,

resident of 56-B, Model Town, Phagwara, District

Kapurthala through his special power of attorney Sh. Anil

Kumar Misra son of Late Sh. Amar Chand Misra, resident of

Baba Fateh Singh Nagar, Gali No. 3-A, Phagwara, District

Kapurthala (Punjab), age about 59 years.

....... Complainant

Versus

Vikas Sud son of Sh. Roshan Lal Sud, resident of MIG-250,

Sector-4 Parwanoo, District Solan (HP)

........ Accused

Complaint U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

Most respectfully submitted,

1. That the accused approached the

complainant and his father in their office at 39-40,

Industrial Area, Phagwara and induced the

complainant to believe that accused has an expertise

in getting allotted a LPG (Cooking Gas Agency) in

Phagwara. The complainant came in the talk of the

 10

accused, on the inducement of the accused, became

interested in the gas agency and believed the accused.

The complainant applied for the gas agency and the

accused assured that the gas agency will be allotted to

the complainant and demanded a total amount of Rs.

20,00,000/- for doing the work and on the demand of

the accused, complainant gave Rs. 2,00,000/- to the

accused on 04.12.2013 though bank transfer from the

account of the complainant to the account of the

accused in HDFC Bank. Then again on the demand of

the accused, against on 16.01.2014 an amount of Rs.

50,000/- was transferred by the complainant from his

bank account in the account of the accused in HDFC

Bank. Similarly, on 22.01.2014 an amount of Rs.

2,50,000/- was transferred by the complainant in the

bank account of the accused from his bank account

on the demand of the accused.

2. That on 21.02.2014 on the demand of the

accused the complainant transferred an amount of Rs.

38,500/- from his bank account in the bank account

of AKQ Bomaby Enterprises and on the demand of the

accused again complainant deposited Rs. 20,000/- in

the account of AKQ Bombay Enterprises on the asking

of the accused. In this way the accused took Rs.

5,58,500/- from the complainant inducing to believe

 11

that the accused will get a gas agency in favour of the

complainant.

3. That there have been continuous telephonic

conversations as well as whatsapp chat between the

accused and father of the complainant namely Sh. SP

Sethi but the accused did nothing material which may

show that any progress is being done by the accused.

Instead accused started making lame excuses. When

the accused failed to do anything substantive, the

complainant came to know that the accused had

dishonest intention from the very inception to cheat

and the complainant asked the accused to return the

amount so received by the accused from the

complainant by deceiving complainant. The record of

whatsapp chat is enclosed herewith the complaint.

4. That thereafter with great efforts and

persuasions by the complainant, the accused issued

one cheque No. 000024 dated 10.11.2014 for an

amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd.

Branch NH-22, Opposite ESI Hospital, Parwanoo,

District Solan (HP) which was payable at Par through

clearing/transfer at all branches of HDFC Bank Ltd.

from his account No. 50100029643689 in favour of

complainant against his pre-existing debt and liability

towards complainant as part payment there at

 12

Phagwara. The cheque issued by the accused with the

assurance that the cheque shall be honored when the

presented. The cheque was signed by the accused in

the presence of the complainant.

5. That believing the assurance of the accused

the complainant presented the cheque for its

encashment but the same was returned dishonored

with remarks "Funds insufficient" and complainant

received information of dishonor vide memo dated

19.11.2014 issued by HDFC Bank Ltd. Branch

Railway Road, Phagwara. Accused was having full

knowledge that accused has not sufficient funds in his

account to meet the cheque's amount, but accused

still issued the cheque intentionally and deliberately.

6. That the complainant got issued a legal

notice dated 10.12.2014 which was duly served on the

accused through registered cover, but despite service

of the notice the accused did not pay even a single

penny to the complainant out the cheque amount till

today, hence his complaint.

7. That the complainant had filed complaint in

the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

Phagwara, which was registered as Complaint No.

55/15. the complaint was taken up for consideration

on the point of summoning the accused person on

 13

18.03.2015 when it was revealed by the Sub-Divisional

Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara that the Sub-Divisional

Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara is not having territorial

jurisdiction to try the present complaint in view of hte

judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India in case titled as 'Dashrath Rup Singh Rathod

versus State of Maharashtra and another' decided on

01.08.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2287 of

2009 and keeping in view of the judgment of the

Supreme Court of India the complaint was ordered to

be returned to the complainant to file it before

appropriate Court within 30 days from the receipt of

the copy of the order dated 18.03.2015. Since, the

order of return was passed on 18.03.2015 copy of the

same was applied for on 23.03.2015 the same was

prepared by the copying agency of the Sub-Divisional

Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara on 06.04.2015 and the

same was delivered to the complainant on 07.04.2015,

hence this complaint before this Hon'ble Court is well

within time as per order dated 18.03.2015.

It is, therefore, prayed before this Hon'ble Court

that the accused may kindly be summoned, dealt with and

punished deterrently and severely under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act in the interest of justice.

 14

It is further prayed that hte accused may kindly

be ordered to pay the double of the cheque amount to the

complainant in the shape of compensation in the interest of

justice and equity.

Dated: 23.04.2015

True Typed Copy

Advocate