Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramnik Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2021
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No. 60946/2021 (RAMNIK PATEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Gwalior, Dated : 20/12/2021 Shri S.S. Kushwaha, Counsel for the applicant Shri C.P. Singh, Counsel for State.
Case Diary is available.
This third application under Section 438 of CrPC has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail. The first two bail applications for grant of anticipatory bail were dismissed as withdrawn in the year 2018 with liberty to file fresh bail application.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.243/2018 registered at Police Station Huzrat Kotwali, Lashkar District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.
It is submitted by Counsel for applicant that according to the prosecution case, complainant made a complaint to the Police on the allegations that he is running a business in the name and style of Global Marketing and is engaged in import and export of edible oils. An agreement was entered into between the complainant and co-accused persons including the applicant for supply of 250 tonnes R.B.D. Palmolein oil at the rate of Rs.584/-per liter. Accordingly, a huge amount was paid by way of advance but the consignment was not delivered and later on the complainant came to know that the consignment has been delivered to some other party, and accordingly, it was alleged that an amount of Rs.83,50,000/- has been misappropriated. 2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No. 60946/2021 (RAMNIK PATEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) It is submitted by Counsel for applicant that at a later stage the complainant has compromised the matter with some of the co-accused persons but he is not ready and willing to enter into a compromise with the applicant, and therefore, it is clear that the complainant has adopted the policy of pick and choose.
So far as the allegation of pick and choose against the complainant is concerned, compromise is nothing but a declaration by the complainant that he does not want to prosecute the concerning accused anymore and entering into a compromise does not mean that complainant has given a declaration that no offence was committed by so called accused. Furthermore, this Court cannot compel a complainant to enter into a compromise with the accused. It is the outlook and prerogative of the complainant.
According to the prosecution case, applicant is one of the owner of Panthraj Rifinery Oil who actively persuaded the complainant to pay Rs. 83,50,000/-, and thereafter the consignment was delivered to somebody- else and an amount of Rs.83,50,000/- was misappropriated.
In view of the serious nature of allegations coupled with the fact that applicant is still absconding even after withdrawal of his first two applications, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.
The application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Aman AMAN TIWARI 2021.12.20 16:44:07 +05'30'