SOHAN LAL JUNEJA AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 770 · Decided: 09-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SOHAN LAL JUNEJA AND ORS. 
v. 
STA TE OF PUNJAB 
B 
NOVEMBER 9, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHW AR SINGH PANT A, 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 
E 
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. 
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. ST A TE OF PUNJAB [PASA Y AT, 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. 
Arun K. Sinha for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Leave granted. 
c 
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 v
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.