http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1030-1031 of 2004

PETITIONER: Jagtar Singh & Anr.              

RESPONDENT: State of Punjab & Ors.   

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/09/2004

BENCH: S.B.Sinha & N.Santosh Hegde

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)Nos.2313-2314 of 2003)

SANTOSH HEGDE,J.

       Heard learned counsel for the parties.

       Leave granted.

       These appeals are filed against the two orders made by the  High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, one in  Crl.Misc.No.52419-M of 2001 dated 29th of April, 2003 and the  other in Crl.Misc.No.19431 of 2003 in Crl.Misc.No.52419-M of  2001 dated 8th of May, 2003 by which orders the High Court  directed the amount deposited with the Chief Judicial Magistrate,  Hoshiarpur by one Nanak Chand be paid over to the respondents- complainants herein.          Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as  follows:         A criminal complaint of cheating and conspiracy under  Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC was filed by Dharamvir  Singh, Amrik Singh and Satish Kumar against the appellants  herein and one Nanak Chand, the father of the first appellant  herein, alleging that they received a sum of Rs.6,22,000/- as a  consideration for sending the complainants abroad and by such  collection of amount the above-named accused have committed the  above said offence.         On coming to know of the filing of complaint, Nanak Chand  apprehending his arrest filed an application for grant of  anticipatory bail in the said petition to show his bona fides, the said  Nanak Chand offered to deposit in the court the amount of Rs.5.82  lacs which was the amount claimed in the complaint. While doing  so, he also agreed that in the event of there being a settlement  between the parties, the said amount will be paid over to the  complainants. Nanak Chand was granted bail in the said case.  Subsequently, even the appellants herein obtained bail.  

A dispute arose in regard to the payment of amount  deposited by Nanak Chand in the court. Since the said dispute  could not be settled between the parties, the matter was referred to  Lok Adalat even then the dispute could not be settled. At this stage, the complainants made an application in the  petition for bail filed by the present appellants that is  Crl.Misc.No.52418-M/2001 seeking the disbursement of the  amount deposited to them alleging that since Nanak Chand had  admitted the receipt of complaint amount and was ready and  willing to return the same, the said amount should be paid to them.  They also contended that there was a panchayat in which Nanak

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Chand had agreed to pay the said amount to them. This application of the complainants was resisted by the  appellants on the ground that the amount in question was deposited  primarily for the purpose of showing the bona fides of said Nanak  Chand and there was a conditional agreement for the disbursement  of the said amount to the complainants in the event of there being a  settlement between the parties and since no such settlement had  been arrived, the High Court in the criminal proceedings cannot  direct the payment of amount to the complainants. The High Court by the impugned order allowed the  application filed by the complainant and directed the amount  deposited with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur be paid  over to the complainants after obtaining proper receipt.       In this case, Shri Sanjay Jain, learned counsel appearing for  the appellants submitted that the amount in question was deposited  to show the bona fides of Nanak Chand only for the purpose of bail  and not as an admission of guilt. Since there is a dispute between  the parties until the same is settled, the money cannot be paid to  the complainants, therefore, the High Court could not have  directed the payment of the amount that was deposited by Nanak  Chand to the complainants.  Shri K.T.S.Tulsi, learned senior counsel appearing for the  complainants-respondents herein pointed out that there was a  panchayat wherein the accused including Nanak Chand had agreed  to pay the above said amount, the proceeding of which was filed in  the courts below, hence, the High Court was justified in directing  the payment to be made to the complainants-respondents. He also  contended that the accused Nanak Chand and even the appellants  herein having obtained the bail after depositing the said amount on  a condition that the same could be paid over to the complainants,  are now trying to over-reach the courts by frivolous objection  therefore, if the amount in question is not to be disbursed to the  complainants, the bail granted to these appellants and Nanak  Chand should be liable to be cancelled.          We notice that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur  accepted the amount from Nanak Chand on his voluntarily  agreeing to deposit the same and further directed the amount to be  paid to the complainants probably the bail was also granted to  Nanak Chand on his showing the said bona fides. But while  accepting the deposit, the Magistrate had made it clear that the  amount in question would be paid to the complainants only if a  settlement is arrived at. He had also directed that in the event of no  settlement being arrived within the time stipulated in his order the  amount in question should be kept in interest bearing deposit.

The fact that there was no settlement between the parties is  not in dispute. It is seen from records that even an attempt to settle  the dispute through Lok Adalat has failed, therefore, the claim of  the complainants for the amount in deposit being in the nature of  the civil dispute. In our opinion, the High Court ought not to have  directed the payment. We are also of the opinion that the High  Court in a bail application could not have adjudicated upon the  rights between the parties in regard to the amount in deposit and  the impugned directions might also prejudice the defence of the  accused. Therefore, we think it proper to set  aside the impugned  orders of the High Court.

Since the amount in question was kept in deposit with the  Magistrate voluntarily by Nanak Chand to show his bona fides and  consequent to which he had obtained a bail the said amount will  not be returned to Nanak Chand either  till the order of bail  continues to be in existence.

We notice by an earlier order the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

Hoshiarpur had directed the amount to be deposited in the interest  bearing account in the event of there being no settlement between  the parties. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we think the said  direction should be given effect  to and the amount in question be  kept in the interest bearing deposit in a nationalised bank till such  time as an appropriate orders are passed by the competent court in  this regard. With the above observations, we allow these appeals and set  aside the impugned orders of the High Court.  These appeals are allowed.