SOHAN LAL JUNEJA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

A
                           SOHAN LAL JUNEJA AND ORS.
                                       v.
                               STATE OF PUNJAB

                                  NOVEMBER 9, 2006
B
               [ARIJIT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]


             Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 438-Jmposition of
C condition of deposit of Rs. JO lacs by High Court for granting interim
     protection in terms of Section 438-Non-deposit of amount as directed-
     Interim protection denied-On appeal, held: High Court had not considered
     relevant aspects and also not indicated reason/or imposing such condition-
     Hence, matter remitted back for fresh consideration.

D          Complainant filed an FIR against appellants and others for their alleged
     involvement in misappropriatiop of stock. The High Court granted interim
     protection in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C. on the condition. of deposit of
     Rs.10,00,000/- with the complainant. Subsequently because of non-deposit of
     the amount as directed, the protection was denied and prayer in terms of
     Section 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected.
E
            In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that in view of the decision
     of this Court in *Bal Kishan Das case, the proceedings arc not maintainable
     and the condition of depositing a huge sum of Rs.l 0,00,000/- as directed by
     the High Court cannot stand scrutiny in law.

F            Disposing of the appeal and remitti~g the matter to High Court, the
     Court

           HELD: 1.1. While dealing with the matter, the High Court shall keep
     in view the principles indicated by this Court relating to Section 438 in **Adri
G    Dharan Das' case and the relevance and applicability of the decision in *Bal
     Kishan Das 's case while dealing with the application in terms of Section 438
     Cr.P.C. (772-C)

          *Bal Kishan Das v. F.C. Nayar, (1991) Suppl. 2 SCC 412 and **Adri
     Dharan Das v. State o/W.B., (200SJ 4 SCC 303, relied on.
II                                         770
           SOHAN LALJUNEJA v. STATE OF PUNJAB [PASA YAT, J.]            771
      1.2. The High Court has not considered the relevant aspects and has A
also not indicated any reason as to why it felt necessary to direct deposit of
Rs.10,00,000/-. Further the ambit of Section 438 Cr.P.C. as delineated by this
Court has not been kept in view. (772-B)

      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.1133 of
~                                                                             B
     From the Judgment and interim Order dated 8.5.2006 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Cr!. M. No. 27303-M/2006.

      R.K. Talwar and S.L. Aneja for the Appellants.
                                                                              c
      Arun K. Sinha for the Respondent.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:

      ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
                                                                              D
      Challenge in this appeal is to the orders passed by the Punjab and
Haryana High Court dealing with the appellants' application in terms of
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C. ')in
Criminal Case No. 27303-M of 2006. The First Information Report (in short
'FIR') was lodged against the appellants and others for their alleged
involvement in mis-appropriation of stock. According to the appellants, the E
dispute essentially revolves around contractual liability and is of a civil
nature. In an arbitration proceeding the matter is under examination. The High
Court by order dated 8th May, 2006 granted interim protection in terms of
Section 438 Cr.P.C. on the condition that a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- shall be
deposited with Markfed i.e. the complainant in the case. Subsequently because F
of non-deposit of the amount as directed, notwithstanding the issuance of
notice by this Court the protection was denied and prayer in terms of Section
438 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

       Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of the decision
of this Court in Bal Kishan Das v. P.C. Nayar, [1991] Suppl. 2 SCC 412 the G
proceedings are not maintainable and the condition of depositing a huge sum
of Rs.10,00,000/- as directed by the High Court cannot stand scrutiny in law.

      Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted
that a huge loss was caused to the complainant because of the. conspiracy
of the appellants and other employees of the complainant. This is basically H
    772                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A not a case of civil dispute and even if arbitration proceedings are in progress,
    that cannot stand in the way of the criminal proceedings, can be pursued.

          We find that the High Court has not ~onsidered the relevant aspects
    and has also not indicated any reason as to why it felt necessary to direct
    deposit of Rs. I 0,00,000/-. Further the ambit of Section 438 Cr.P.C. as delineated
B   by this Court has not been kept in view.

          In the circumstances, we set·aside the orders of the High Court dated.
    8.5.2006 and 7.8.2006 and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration. Needless
    to say while dealing with the matter the High Court shall keep in view the
C   principies indicated by this Court relating to Section 438 in Adri Dharan Das
    v. State of W.B., [2005] 4 SCC 303] and the relevance and applicability of the
    decision in Bal Kishan Das 's case (supra) while dealing with the application
    in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

           The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

    D.G.                                                        Appeal disposed of.