Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kiran Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 November, 2020
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 1
MCRC No. 43347/2020
Kiran Chauhan vs. State of MP
Gwalior, Dated :25/11/2020
Shri Siddharth Sharma, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Sankalp Sharma, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State.
Heard finally through Video Conferencing.
Case Diary is available.
This is 4th Application under Section 439 of CrPC has been filed for grant of bail.
The applicant has been arrested on 12/04/2019 in connection with Crime No.480/2015 registered at Police Station Gwalior, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, Section 3/5 of the Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, Sections 45-A, 45-S, 58-B, 5-A of Reserve Bank of India Act and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banking) Act.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution case, a company in the name and style of Ummed Corporation Producer Company was floated by the applicant and her husband and other co-accused persons and cheated various complainants and victims by inducing them to deposit an amount of Rs.2 lacs each. It is submitted that although the rent agreement of the premises in which Ummed Corporation Producer Company was being operated, is in the name of the applicant as well as the applicant THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 MCRC No. 43347/2020 Kiran Chauhan vs. State of MP was appointed as Manager of the Company but there are no allegations that she was actively involved in inducing the victims to deposit the money. The applicant is in jail from 12/04/2019 and the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time.
Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that still some accused persons are absconding. It is further submitted that the applicant along with her husband and other co-accused persons floated a Company without getting it registered with the RBI as well as without getting licence to carry out the financial activities, cheated various innocent victims and not only that, the applicant had tried to sell all her property so that the amount cheated by them may not be recovered.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
It appears that the applicant is a very influential person and had influenced the Investigating Agency also and in order to help out the applicant and other co-accused persons, the Investigating Agency had gone to the extent of filing false affidavits before this Court.
The complainant Gokaran Sharma had filed a Writ Petition No.3466/2019 complaining non-action of the police. In the said writ petition, a false impression was given by the Investigating Officer, that an order under Section 83 of CrPC has already been obtained and accordingly in the said writ petition, the State Counsel was directed THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 MCRC No. 43347/2020 Kiran Chauhan vs. State of MP to clarify as to on what date, the said order was passed by the court of competent jurisdiction. This impression was given on 27/03/2019. Thereafter, on 05/04/2019, the State Counsel clarified that the order under Section 83 of CrPC was issued on 28/03/2019 i.e. one day after false impression was given by the Government Advocate. However, this Court observed that that is not the end of the matter but even after issuance of the order under Sections 82, 83 of CrPC, the Investigating Agency woke up on 27/03/2019 only in view of tough stand taken by this Court in Writ Petition No.3466/2019. On 05/04/2019, when this Court was not satisfied with the reply given by Government Advocate, therefore, the Superintendent of Police along with the Investigating Officer were directed to appear in the second half of the day and they appeared along with original police case diary. Today also, the original police case diary is available. In the police case diary, it appears that on 03/04/2018, diary proceedings were written by the Investigating Officer that the Court of JMFC has fixed the case on 23/05/2018 for production of public proclamation of the absconding accused and thereafter, nothing was done and the case diary was opened on 07/10/2018, i.e. after Six months and it was mentioned that the public proclamation was not got published in the newspapers. Thereafter, on 03/01/2019, the case diary was reopened i.e. after 3 months and then the news with regard to absconsion of the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 MCRC No. 43347/2020 Kiran Chauhan vs. State of MP accused persons was got published. Thereafter, on 14/03/2019, the diary proceedings were written that a recommendation is being sent to the Superintendent of Police for filing the charge sheet against the applicant and three other co-accused persons under Section 299 of CrPC and to keep the investigation pending against Pravin Kumar, Rinku, Ram Kumar, Rakesh and Sunil under Section 173(8) of CrPC. Case diary proceeding is dated 16/03/2019 in which it was mentioned that the Superintendent of Police has directed to continue the investigation. On 28/03/2019, a memo was prepared for sending it to the Tahsildar for getting the details of the property of absconding accused persons. Thereafter, it appears that again an order was obtained for attachment of house no. 686 belonging to the applicant and on 11/04/2019, the applicant was arrested from Noida. During the course of arguments in Writ Petition No.3466/2019, it was accepted by the Investigating Officer that the public proclamation was got published in the newspaper known as ''Sudarshan Express'' which does not have any circulation in the city of Gwalior. The Investigating Officer further admitted that he did not conduct any effective investigation from 03/01/2019 to 23/09/2019 and only when the Superintendent of Police expressed that now, he would ensure that the accused are arrested, then all of a sudden, the applicants were got arrested from Noida on 11/04/2019 i.e. within six days from the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 MCRC No. 43347/2020 Kiran Chauhan vs. State of MP date of assurance given by the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior. Thus, it is clear that the Investigating Officer was aware of the address of the applicant and other co-accused persons but still they did not open the diary for months together in spite of pendency of writ petition before this Court, and they did not make any attempt to arrest the accused persons including the applicant. This fact has already been considered by this Court by order dated 13/08/2019 passed in MCRC No.30811 of 2019.
Thereafter, the applicant filed another application which was registered as MCRC No.20239 of 2020 for grant of temporary bail on the ground that she may be granted temporary bail so that she can dispose of the property. The said contention of the applicant was rejected by order dated 06/07/2020 and prayer for temporary bail was rejected.
Thus, it is clear that not only the applicant floated a company in the name of Ummed Corporation Producer Company and cheated various innocent depositors and thereafter, closed down the Company and ran away but she also influenced the police and also tried to alienate her property.
This Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Goyal vs. State of MP and Others passed in MCRC No.15521 by order dated 09/07/2019 has held that each and every victim would a complainant THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 6 MCRC No. 43347/2020 Kiran Chauhan vs. State of MP and the police should register a separate offence for separate act of cheating and registration of single offence by making other victim as witness is not proper. However, in the present case, also the police has registered a single offence on the allegations that the applicant by floating the company in the name of Ummed Corporation Producer Company, has cheated various innocent depositors.
Under these circumstances, where the applicant had not only hampered the investigation by somehow managing the Investigating Officer and only after intervention of this Court, with great difficulties, the Investigating Officer arrested the applicant coupled with the fact that various innocent depositors were cheated by the applicant and other co-accused persons and even the applicant has tried to dispose of her property in order to avoid the civil liability which may incur against her, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail. The application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge MKB MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK VALSALA 2020.11.27 18:52:13 +05'30' VASUDEVAN 2018.10.26 15:14:29 -07'00'