Allahabad High Court
Chhavi Gautam vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 May, 2022
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 1 Reserved on: 06.05.2022 Delivered on: 13.05.2022 Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8930 of 2021 Applicant :- Chhavi Gautam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Chandra Mishra,Sr. Advocate Sri V.P. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepti,Sudhir Dixit,Utkarsh Dixit Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. Heard Ms. Swati Bhushan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sudhir Dixit, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed before this Court on behalf of the applicant- Chhavi Gautam with the following prayer:-
"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and grant the accused/applicant anticipatory bail to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with First Information Report dated 18.02.2021 in connection with Case Crime No. 0019 of 2021, Under Section 408, 420, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Sector 58, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."
The first information report of the present case was lodged on 18.01.2021, under Section 406 I.P.C. by Rahul Gupta against the applicant, Sylvain Calzaroni and Link Brown alleging therein as follows:-
(i) The first informant was the Commercial Director of KEP Technologies Pvt. Ltd, 80 iTHUM Tower, Noida Sector-62 from 01.06.2018 to 20.02.2020 on an appointment done by the owner of the company. He was the first full time Director appointed on 16.05.2018 by the Registrar of Companies.
(ii) On 20.02.2020, co-accused Link Brown who was the immediate Reporting Manager of the first informant took his resignation on whatsapp and without following the procedure as per the Company Law, he was terminated and called on the next day. On the next day, he was informed by sweeper of the office that his office is locked. Smt. Chhavi Gautam (the applicant) in collusion with others with an intention to become Director had done the said fraud.
(iii) Smt. Chhavi Gautam with other persons of the company broke the lock of almirah of the first informant and stole his digital signature, used it in tenders in IIT Roorkie and other places and gained monetary benefit by showing it to be used by the first informant.
(iv) The accused persons also used it before the Registrar of Companies without permission, information and board resolution.
(v) The remunerations of the first informant were held illegal by the accused persons.
(vi) Smt. Chhavi Gautam came to the hosue of the first informant and threatened him.
(vii) A complaint was made by the first informant to officers, police and courts after which lawyers of both the parties had a meeting and it was decided that both the parties will part their ways and the first informant returned the privileges provided to him by the company. Various commercial gains are being taken by Smt. Chhavi Gautam due to her illegal acts.
(viii) Smt. Chhavi Gautam the present Director along with other accused persons have tried to implicate the first informant falsely for which she entered into a conspiracy with other persons and has also with an intention to give commercial benefit to the company misused the name, post and respect etc. of the first informant. The same can very well be seen from the laptop and other documents during investigation. The first information report is thus lodged.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that when the present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was filed, the matter was under investigation. Subsequently a charge-sheet dated 06.07.2021 has been filed against the applicant under Sections 408, 420, 120-B I.P.C. being charge-sheet No. 01 dated 06.07.2021, the copy of the same has been placed before the Court which is annexed as Annexure-SA1 to the IIIrd Supplementary Affidavit dated 16.12.2021. It is further argued that on the said charge-sheet cognizance has been taken and the applicant has been summoned vide order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-I, Gautam Budh Nagar and the case is numbered as Criminal Case No. 134 of 2021 (State of U.P. vs. Chhavi Gautam), under Sections 408, 420, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Sector- 58, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The certified copy of the said order has been placed before the Court which is annexed as Annexure-SA2 to the said Supplementary Affidavit.
4. Learned counsel has argued as follows:-
(i) The allegations against the applicant are totally false, baseless and misconceived.
(ii) The GST as used in the various commercial transactions was of the company and had nothing to do with the first informant.
(iii) The car used by the first informant is in the name of the company and he has no legal right over it. The car was sold before the first information report was lodged.
(iv) The first informant had made various complaints and the applicant had also made a complaint in Noida after which the parties had entered into a settlement and a Memo of Understanding between M/s. KEP Technologies and Rahul Gupta / first informant was entered into which was drawn and signed by the parties on 31.07.2020, the copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit which has been placed before the Court. It is argued that Rs. 25,00,000/- has been paid by the company to the first informant in view of the terms of settlement as per the MoU and further in so far as the other agreed conditions as noted in the MoU are concerned, the company has discharged its liability and responsibility. It is argued that the applicant was removed as Director of the company with effect from 03.03.2020. The copy of Form 12 has been placed before the Court which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit. It is argued that as such the applicant deserves to be granted anticipatory bail in the matter.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that the digital signature of the first informant was used by the applicant after his removal as the Director of the company. It is argued that one of the instances of the said fraudulent use was in the Punjab University in which on 29.12.2020 a transaction of Rs. 80 lakhs was done. It is argued that although a settlement was entered into but still after signing of the MoU, the digital signature of the first informant was being continuously used. It is argued that the matter relates to misuse of digital signature on the basis of which monetary gain has been done. It is argued that the matter relates to financial transactions. The investigation has concluded and the police after thorough and threadbare investigation came to conclusion that there has been an offence made out and as such has filed a charge-sheet against the applicant on which cognizance has been taken and the applicant has been summoned to face trial.
6. Learned counsel for the State has also opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the first informant. It is further supplemented that the charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted after proper and thorough investigation on which the Court concerned has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant. It is argued that offence is made out against the applicant.
7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is named in the first information report and there are specific allegations against her. The case is of misuse of digital signature of the first informant by the applicant through which monetary gain was taken. The investigation has concluded. Even in the investigation, the allegations against the applicant are substantiated. The trial court has taken cognizance upon the charge-sheet and has summoned the applicant to face trial. The digital signature is a valuable security and use of the same by another person without the permission of its owner is an offence.
8. In these circumstances, I do not fine it a fit case for interference, hence, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 13.5.2022 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)