S.C. Mital, J. - (1.) The petitioner was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 17.9.1999 but the petitioner has not appeared the fore the Investigating Officer. Thus, he has not complied with the directions of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that only seven days time was allowed and the petitioner is at Bombay doing business there. Therefore, his appearance could not be managed before the Investigating Officer on 17.9.1999. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as soon as the order was passed it was the duty of the petitioner to comply with the directions and immediate message should have been sent to him. In these circumstances. I am satisfied that there is no reasonable ground for not complying with the directions of this Court. In this view of the matter. the stay order for not arresting the petitioner is hereby vacated.
(2.) Thereafter the petition was heard on merits. Perused the case diary and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. The allegation against the petitioner is that after purchasing yarn from the complainant, the petitioner issued two cheques dated 19. I I .1998 & 23.11.1998. The complainant presented the cheques in the bank on 19.3.1999 but both the cheques were dis-honoured. On the above facts it is alleged that the petitioner committed the offences under sections 420 & 406 IPC.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has tried to make a criminal case out of civil dispute in order to pressurise, to harass and insult the petitioner. The cheques which were issued were postdated cheques and at the most cheques were dis-honoured, it could be said that there is breach. of contract or breach of promise. It is not a case of cheating, moreover there is no material to show for the offence under section 406 IPC because the yarn was purchased by the petitioner and on that purchase two cheques were issued. It is contended that a purely civil dispute has been given colour of criminal proceedings under sections 420 & 406 IPC. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail petition on the ground that when the cheque was presented for payment on 19.3.1999, there was no balance in the account of the petitioner, therefore, it shows that the petitioner never intended to make payment and the post-dated cheques were issued to the complainant without any intention from the very beginning to make payment. Therefore, there a prima facie case under section 420 IPC is made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that when the cheques were dis-honoured. the petitioner did not proceed to take any action under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and when he failed to initiate such action then he has filed this report.;