Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lalchand Chajlani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2020
Author: Akhil Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Akhil Kumar Srivastava
1 MCRC-8085-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-8085-2020
(LALCHAND CHAJLANI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 26-02-2020
Shri Siddharth Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri C.B. Singh, learned GA for the respondent/State.
Case diary is available.
This is the first application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.77/2020 registered at Police Station- Gautam Nagar, District- Bhopal (M.P.) for the offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.
As per the prosecution case, in the year 1990, Mrs. Rambha Sharma became the Chairperson of a Co-operative Society and by virtue of being the Chairperson, she was entitled to sell the plot. The applicant who is aged about 62 years, was the commission agent for selling the plots. Mrs. Rambha Sharma executed an agreement in favour of the applicant on 23/05/2006 for resale, sale and registration of the plots and she was passed away in the month of July 2010 pursuant to which, her son became the new Chairperson of the Samiti. The allegation against the applicant is that they committed fraud with the people who relied upon the benefits of the samiti and misusing the process of law to earn money by selling the already sold plot.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The allegations made by the informant are false, frivolous and vexatious as the matter is purely a civil dispute and no element of criminality can be attributed. It is further submitted that the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of 13 years from the date of alleged incident which shows that FIR is an afterthought and is nothing but a misuse of process of law. The applicant is ready to co-operate with investigation and shall abide by all the conditions which may be imposed by this Court; hence, Digitally signed by RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Date: 27/02/2020 01:38:21 2 MCRC-8085-2020 prays for anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the bail application. Heard rival contentions of the parties and perused the entire material available on record including the case diary.
Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is case of fraud and forgery of a vast magnitude. The matter is under investigation that may require interrogation and seizure. It would not be proper to interfere in the investigation. The Apex Court has held that the Civil and Criminal proceedings are different and distinct. In the case of Kamla Devi Agrawal Vs. State of West Bengal and others reported as (2002) 1 SCC 555, has held that, even if allegation discloses the civil dispute the same by itself may not be a ground to thwart a criminal prosecution.
Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant, this Court is of the considered view that it is not a fit case, in which, discretion of granting anticipatory bail may be exercised by this Court at this stage.
Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.
(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE RS Digitally signed by RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Date: 27/02/2020 01:38:21