Madhya Pradesh High Court
Navneet Garg vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2023
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 1st OF MAY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 17717 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
NAVNEET GARG S/O SHRI VINOD GARG,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS 401, SHUBH PRATHAM
APARTMENT, 7, KHANDELWAL NAGAR,
NAVLAKHA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI VIVEK DALAL,ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
BAGONDA, TEHSIL DR. AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
( SHRI S S THAKUR GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE
AND SHRI SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
This is the applicant's first application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as "Cr.P.C.") Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 02-May-23 5:37:39 PM 2 for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.153/2023 registered at Police Station Badgonda, Tehsil Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, District Indore (MP) for offences punishable under Section 420, 406 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
It is alleged that the applicant had formed a limited liability partnership with the complainant Praveen Dadu, and admittedly Praveen Dadu had 26 % share whereas, the applicant had 70% share, and one Kshitij Yadav had 4 % share, however, Kshitij Yadav, has already diluted his shares which is now owned by the applicant and the complainant 2% each. The complainant Praveen Dadu had also provided the land in the firm. It is alleged that on 11.10.2022, a report was lodged by the applicant at police station Badgonda District Mhow regarding the starting of the theft of stock from their go-down at Mhow. However, as the police did not take any action, the applicant also filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C in the Court of JMFC, District Mhow, and the said compliant is still pending. Subsequently, on 28.12.2022, the complainant in the present case against whom the allegations were made by the applicant in his complaint dated dated 11.10.2022, filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C on 28.12.2022. Prior to the aforesaid complaint, a representation was also filed by the complainant before the concerned police station, and also to the higher authorities, but as no action was taken on the complainant's representation,the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C was filed on 28.12.2022 alleging the defalcation of the stock by the applicant.
Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case, despite the fact that he is the share holder of Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 02-May-23 5:37:39 PM 3 74% of the partnership firm whereas the complainant has only 26%. It is also submitted that the applicant has already initiated proceedings under Sections 9 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 against the complainant as it is purely a civil dispute which has been given colour of criminal case and in such circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary.
Counsel for the applicant, in support of his contention has relied upon certain judgements passed by the Supreme Court as well as the High Court of Delhi in the case of Wolfgang Reim and others Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2012 SCC online Del,3341, in the case of Velji Raghavji Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1965 SC 1433 and in the case of Ira Juneja Vs. State and another passed in 2004 Crl.L.J 3664.
Counsel appearing for the objector, on the other hand has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that there is a huge defalcation of stock worth around Seven Crores and has drawn the attention of this Court to an Email issued by the HDFC Bank dated 31.10.2022 wherein the Bank Officer has informed the complainant regarding not providing the details of physical stock. Counsel has also submitted that the complaint filed against the complainant was clearly an afterthought, only with a view to falsely implicate the complainant and even today, the applicant has not come with an explanation regarding the stock being short.
Counsel for the objector has also drawn attention of this Court to the information provided by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Mhow District, Indore vide letter dated 28.04.023 in which it is clearly mentioned that the stock in go-down/factory is showing zero.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 02-May-23 5:37:39 PM 4Counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for anticipatory bail is made out as earlier also one case under Section 406 of IPC was registered against him.
In rebuttal, counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the aforesaid mentioned case, the applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail and the civil suit which was filed by the complainant party in that case has already been dismissed.
Having considered the rival submissions, and on perusal of the case diary as also the record, it is found that the criminal case against the applicant was triggered after he filed the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C against the complainant, which is still pending. It is also found that although the Bank has informed the applicant about not providing of the details of the stock, however, it is also apparent that till date the Bank has not taken any action against him and it is also found that the proceedings under Section 9 and 10 of the Act of 1966 are also pending between the parties. It appears to be a case of two partners at the loggerheads, trying to score over each other and for this purpose they are also resorting to lodging of civil as well as the criminal actions, and in such facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it to be a case where custodial interrogation of the applicant would be necessary.
Accordingly, the application stands allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant shall be released on bail, upon executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) and furnishing solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer). The applicant shall make Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 02-May-23 5:37:39 PM 5 himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in Sub Section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE das Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA PARTHO SARKAR Signing time: 02-May-23 5:37:39 PM