Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj vs Sunil on 27 February, 2024
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 27th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 17975 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
MANOJ S/O RAMCHANDRA HABLANI,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS R/O 163, PALSIKAR COLONY
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI AJAY BAGADIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI PIYUSH
DUBEY, ADVOCATE )
AND
SUNIL S/O TARACHAND MANDWANI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
1.
BUSINESS R/O 53/1, PALSIKAR COLONY
(MADHYA PRADESH)
STATE OF M.P. THR. POLICE THANA
2. TEJAJI NAGAR. INDORE. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
SHRI VIJAY KUMAR ASSUDANI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1
SHRI SHALABH SHARMA, GOVT, ADVOCATE
SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, ADVOCATE FOR INTERVENER
SHRI SAMEER VERMA, ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5342 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH
POLICE STATION TEJAJI NAGAR, DIST.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA SUDHIR
DAS
Signing time: 16-03-2024
12:10:09
2
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
SHRI SHALABH SHARMA, GOVT. ADVOCATE
AND
SUNIL MANDWANI S/O SHRI TARACHAND
MANDWANI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O 53/1
PALSIKAR COLONY INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR ASUDANI, ADVOCATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These applications coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. This order shall also govern the disposal of both these Misc. Criminal Case No.17975/2024 (Manoj S/o Ramchandra Hablani Vs. Sunil S/o Tarachand Mandwani) and Misc. Criminal Case No.5342/2024 (State of MP Vs. Sunil S/o Tarachand Mandwani) as they have arisen out of the same Crime number 750/2021, registered at Police Station Tejaji Nagar, District Indore.
2. These applications have been filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for cancellation of bail of respondent Sunil S/o Tara Chand Mandwani granted to him in MCRC.No.1711/2022 vide order dated 14.2.2022, which was Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA SUDHIR DAS Signing time: 16-03-2024 12:10:09 3 allowed by the coordinate Bench of this Court by passing the following order:-
"7. Heard the rival submissions and perused the material produced on record. This is not disputed that on earlier occasion, an FIR was lodged by the other plot-holders of Mahalakshmi Dham Colony against the applicant for almost similar allegations, wherein applicant has been enlarged on bail. This is also not disputed that ousted Directors of M/s Santosh Devkan Co. Pvt. Ltd. have filed a contempt petition before the NCLT, wherein a stay order has been passed against the applicant. In the aforesaid circumstances, considering the fact that there is no allegation with regard to violation of any of the conditions of earlier bail order by the applicant, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail on some stringent conditions, hence, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.
8. It is directed that the applicant is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lacs only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance before the Trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Trial Court during the pendency of trial. It is further directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437 (3) of Cr. P. C. It is further stipulated that applicant, within one month from the date of his release shall participate in the proceedings pending before the NCLT and shall Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA SUDHIR DAS Signing time: 16-03-2024 12:10:09 4 take appropriate steps to get the stay order vacated and thereafter resolve the dispute of the plot-holders of Mahalakshmi Dham Colony, Limbodi, Indore. If the applicant fails to comply with any of the aforesaid directions given by this Court, then the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail granted to the applicant."
3. The grievance of the applicants is that despite a specific order passed by this court that the respondent shall participate in the proceedings before the NCLT and shall take appropriate steps to get the stay order vacated, and thereafter resolve the dispute of the plot- holders of Mahalakshmi Dham Colony, Limbodi Indore, the respondent has transferred the property to the purchaser of the company, i.e., M/s Santosh Devcon Pvt. Ltd., with a stipulation that M/s Santosh Devcon Pvt.Ltd., shall settle the dispute with the plot holders whose claims have still remain unattended.
4. Shri Vijay Asudani, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that after transfer of the property to M/s Santosh Devcon Pvt.Ltd., it was for them only to settle the dispute as is agreed between the parties, and the respondent having lost the control of the company and the plots, cannot be held liable for the inaction on Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA SUDHIR DAS Signing time: 16-03-2024 12:10:09 5 the part of the subsequent transferee M/s Santosh Devcon Pvt.Ltd.
5. Shri Manoj Munshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener- M/s Santosh Devcon Pvt.Ltd, by filing an application (I.A.No.11180/2023) for intervention has submitted that M/s Santosh Devcon Pvt.Ltd., was ready to settle the dispute with all the plot holders. However, till date the authentic plot holders have not approached them, and even assuming the Diary entries made by the respondent to be true, the intervener cannot sell the property at old rates as it is not financial viable for them since they have purchased the rights of the respondent after making huge investments, and taking into account the current price of the property they can sell it only at the current market price. Thus, it is submitted that if the plot holders are interested in purchasing the property at current price, the intervener can sell the plots to them. It is also submitted that as directed by this Court on 2.8.2023, the intervener had also published advertisements in the newspaper, inviting the plot holders to submit their claims. However, despite such advertisement having been issued in various newspapers, Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA SUDHIR DAS Signing time: 16-03-2024 12:10:09 6 nobody has turned up. It is also submitted that the allegation against the respondent is only that he had obtained the amount from the plot holders @ Rs.1300/- to Rs.1450/- per sq. ft., and after a lapse of 11 years, the respondent has neither executed the sale deed in favour of the plot purchasers nor developed the promised land, and has misappropriated the whole amount. Thus, it is submitted that the intervener cannot be forced to sell the plots at the old rates agreed by the respondent.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. From the record, it is found that various disputed question of facts has been raised by the parties. So far as respondent M/s Sunil Mandwani is concerned, admittedly, he has transferred his entire stake in the company to the intervener M/s Santosh Devcon Pvt. Ltd., and as of now, it is practically impossible for him to execute the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC.No.1711/2022.
8. In such circumstances, considering the fact that there is a dispute inter-se between the respondent Sunil Mandwani and M/s Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA SUDHIR DAS Signing time: 16-03-2024 12:10:09 7 Santosh Devcon Pvt.Ltd., and in between there are claims raised by the plot owners, whose Diary entries are also disputed by the intervener, it cannot be said that the respondent has deliberately not complied with the order passed by this Court in MCRC.No.1711/2022, and thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the right of the parties can only be crystallised after the evidence is led before the trial Court.
9. In view of the same, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, both the miscellaneous criminal cases stand dismissed. However, with liberty reserved to the applicant to take recourse of the remedy available to him under law, including filing of the civil suit.
10. All the pending interlocutory applications if any stand disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE das Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA SUDHIR DAS Signing time: 16-03-2024 12:10:09