A.Talukdar, J. - (1.) A Division Bench of this Court on 4th December, 2000 in connection with C.R.M. 3855 of 2000 to which one of us (Banerjee, J.) was a party, had granted Anticipatory Bail in favour of the petitioners (opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 herein) in connection with section "G" Case No. 620/2000 dated 23.9.2000 under sections 120B/408/406 of the Indian Penal Code upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners (opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 herein) on the condition that the petitioners, if arrested by the Police in connection with the instant case, shall be released on Bail of Rs. 5000/- with one surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting Police Officer.
(2.) This application has been taken out on behalf of the defacto-complainant who figures as the petitioner in this application for cancellation of the said order. This application has been styled under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The main grievance of the petitioner in this application relates to dishonour of two cheques which were issued pursuant to a Memorandum of understanding arrived at by and between the parties in the post stage of the grant of Anticipatory Bail by a Division Bench of this Court. Learned counsel, appearing in support of this application, has addressed us at length with regard to the conduct of the accused-opposite parties in failing to honour their obligation by issuing two cheques which were bounced and as a result of which she submitted that the accused/persons have over reached the Court and had violated the terms of the Memorandum of understanding. She has referred to the "Return" filed by the accused persons and also her reply thereto. She has taken a point that certain assertions have been made in the "Return" which are not borne out of record and they tend to interfere with the administration of justice inasmuch as the averments therein were not correct. She has also referred to one decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjoy Sharma v. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in AIR 1995 SC 1795 wherein certain false averments have been made in the affidavits which were considered to be interfering with the course of justice. Relying on the said decision learned senior counsel submitted that the accused persons have practised deceit on this Court by giving two cheques which were dishonoured.
(3.) Learned advocate for the State has produced the case diary and showed that notice was sent to the complainant, but he did not co-operate with the investigation. He has further submitted that there is an allegation of tampering and/or interfering with the investigation of the case by the accused or missusing the liberty granted by the Court.;