Bombay High Court
Chetan R. Shah And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 September, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 BOM 2449
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
:1: 10-aba-st-2123-20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION (ST) NO. 2123 OF 2020
Jayesh Dedhia .... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 2537 OF 2020
Chetan R. Shah & Ors. ....Interveners
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
Jayesh Dedhia .... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
______
Mr. Rajiv Chavan, Sr. Advocate i/b. Ms. Sudha Dwivedi for
Applicant.
Mr. Rakesh K. Agrawal for Intervenors.
Mr. Amit A. Palkar, APP for State/Respondent.
______
CORAM :SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE :30th SEPTEMBER, 2020 P.C. :
1. The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No.306/2020 registered with Matunga Police Station. Digitally signed
Subsequently, the investigation was taken over by E.O.W. Unit VII by 1 of 9 Pradeepkumar Gokhale Pradeepkumar P. Deshmane P. Deshmane Date:
2020.10.01 16:14:30 +0530 :2: 10-aba-st-2123-20.odt by registering their FIR bearing No.18 of 2020 under sections 409, 420, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999. (for short 'MPID Act')
2. Heard Shri. Rajiv Chavan, learned Senior counsel for the applicant and Shri. Palkar, learned APP for the State.
3. The FIR is lodged on 17/07/2020 by one Rajesh Shah. He has stated in the FIR that, he was knowing M/s. R. H. Associates which was a partnership firm having its office at Matunga. He has named the partners in the FIR as Ramnik Dedhiya, Hasmukh Gogari, Mukesh Chheda, Pankaj Chheda, Khushal Chheda and Dilesh Veera. It is mentioned in the FIR that the partnership firm was in the business of investment and commissions. It is further mentioned that, on every investment they used to offer interest at the rate of Rs.12%p.a. or more. After accepting such investment they used to forward that amount to various other parties for investment at higher rates. The first informant had invested with the partnership firm from October 2016 onwards. He was knowing the partners of the partnership 2 of 9 :3: 10-aba-st-2123-20.odt firm. Whenever the investment was made the firm used to issue promissory notes. The promissory notes contained signatures of future parties with whom they had invested their amount. According to the first informant, he and his family members invested about Rs.48 lakhs with R. H. Associates. From 01/01/2018 no interest was paid on their investment. The amount of interest was paid up to December 2017, but from January 2018 neither the principal, nor the interest amount was paid to the investors. The FIR goes on to mention that, there were 77 other investors, who had lost total amount of Rs.11,88,00,000/-. On this basis the FIR is lodged.
4. Shri. Rajiv Chavan, learned senior counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not a partner in partnership of M/s. R. H. Associates. His father was a partner and the applicant is unnecessarily roped in. He submitted that, whatever investment was accepted by the applicant was not through R. H. Associates. He submitted that, money was accepted by the applicant by way of loan transaction and for every transaction he had issued a promissory note by way of receipt.
3 of 9
:4: 10-aba-st-2123-20.odt
Learned senior counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant has not accepted any cash amount. He further submitted that, provisions of MPID Act are not applicable in this case as the applicant cannot fall within the ambit of Section 2(d) which defines 'financial establishment'. He submitted that, purpose of MPID Act is to recover money and not to punish people. He finally submitted that, the applicant's custody is not required. He added that the applicant could raise money allegedly due from him within a period of three months. Initially, Shri. Chavan submitted that, he was liable to pay only Rs.12 crores but subsequently Shri. Chavan submitted that the applicant is willing to deposit Rs.20 crores within a period of three months.
5. As against these submissions, learned APP has relied on the affidavit filed by the investigating agency. It is mentioned in the affidavit that the partnership firm mentioned in the FIR lured general public by introducing guarantee money back at higher interest rate @12%p.a. The affidavit further mentions that, the partners in connivance with each other entrusted the firm's investments into different allied companies and proprietorship 4 of 9 :5: 10-aba-st-2123-20.odt firms owned and managed by the family members of the partners. Several investors deposited their amounts in those partnership firms, other allied companies and proprietorship firms owned and managed through partners of R.H. Associates. They failed to refund the principal amount, as well as, interest thereon and thereby duped several investors.
6. The affidavit further mentions in paragraph No.7 that, during the investigation it was revealed that, as on date of the affidavit, there were 241 victims who had invested and lost their money. They have recorded statements of 241 investors and the total amount of the fraud as of today stands to the tune of Rs.76,27,05,000/-. The Paragraph No.8 of the said affidavit mentions that, the applicant is a family member of one of the partners of R.H. Associates and a borrower of the said partnership firm. The applicant has accepted deposits from several investors in his personal capacity and with his family members through several proprietorship firms and companies. The affidavit mentions different entities through whom he has received money. The affidavit shows that, he had accepted Rs.08,62,00,000/- in cash 5 of 9 :6: 10-aba-st-2123-20.odt and Rs.13,83,75,000/- in cheques. Total is Rs.20,45,75,000/-. On this basis, the investigating agency is opposing grant of anticipatory bail.
7. I have considered these submissions. First of all, reliance of Shri. Chavan on the averments of FIR only is misplaced. The FIR is just a starting point on which the investigation begins. The scope of investigation carried out so far extends to various investors who were deprived of their money. The affidavit mentions that, entities directly connected with the applicant had accepted more than Rs.20 crores. Though, Shri. Chavan disputes acceptance of amount in cash, at this stage, the investigating agency has sufficient material in the form of statements of victims to support the stand taken by the investigating agency. In any case, the case cannot be limited to the amount accepted by the applicant or his family members' entities. The allegations are that, all the accused in connivance with each other have committed this offence. Therefore, liability, so far as, the present applicant is concerned, cannot be separated from other accused in case of offence under MPID Act. The total amount which is 6 of 9 :7: 10-aba-st-2123-20.odt misappropriated as of today stands to more than Rs.76 crorers. There is no force in the submission of Shri. Chavan that the applicant cannot fall within the definition of 'Financial Establishment'. Said definition mentioned in Section 2(d) of the MPID Act reads thus:
2. Definitions:- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) xxx
(b) xxx
(c) xxx
(d) "Financial Establishment" means any person accepting deposit under any scheme or arrangement or in any other manner but does not include a corporation or a co-
operative society owned or controlled by any State Government or the Central Government or a banking company defined under clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949);
8. The applicant accepting deposits either by himself or through his entities clearly falls within the definition of MPID Act. The applicant's belated offer of making payment also does not appeal to reason. The MPID Act itself is strong enough to effect such recovery. In any case, the applicant cannot limit his liability to the tune of Rs.20 crores when there are allegations that all the 7 of 9 :8: 10-aba-st-2123-20.odt partners with their family members in connivance duped various investors to the amount of more than Rs.76 crores. The misappropriation is huge. In this background, custodial interrogation of the applicant to find out exact nature of offence and to find out the trail of money is necessary. Several innocent victims have lost their hard earned money. This certainly is not a case for anticipatory bail.
9. Shri. Chavan invited my attention to the order passed by this court in Writ Petition No.1188 of 2019 on 03/05/2019 on the original civil jurisdiction. In that case, as suggested by the order, petitioners therein were not granted any relief by this court. The petitioner therein was a partner of R.H.Associates. In that order it was observed that, petitioners are simply pursuing their private wage against private respondents, for which they wish the income tax machinery to be activated, that too, under the orders and directions of Court. The writ petition was rejected by this court. The applicant was one of the respondent. Shri. Chavan, therefore, pointed out that the grudge held against the present applicant who was one of the party respondent was beyond what 8 of 9 :9: 10-aba-st-2123-20.odt is mentioned in the FIR and this needs closer scrutiny. Learned APP rightly pointed out that the petitioner No.1 in that case was one of the partner of R.H. Associates and co-accused of the present applicant in the present case. Therefore, it is not clear as to how this order helps present applicant in securing anticipatory bail in this matter.
10. The application is rejected.
11. In view of rejection of application, intervention application does not survive and stands disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) 9 of 9