Bombay High Court
Manpreet Singh Avinder Singh Vijan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 November, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 BOM 3057
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
1 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION [ST.] NO.3357 OF 2020
Harvindersingh Jogindersingh Vijan ..Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
-----
Mr. Rizwan Merchant a/w. Nilesh Tribhuvan, Burzin Bharucha,
Alisha Pinto, Aarti Deodhar, Jehan Fulwadiwala i/b. White and
Briefs, Advocates and Solicitors, for the Applicant.
Mr. Deepak Thakre, Public Prosecutor a/w. Rutuja Ambekar, APP,
for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Sudeep Pasbola i/b. Bhavesh Thakur, for the original
complainant.
-----
WITH
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION [ST.] NO.3404 OF 2020
Jagjit Singh Ishwarsingh Vijan ..Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
-----
Mr. Sanjog Parab, Senior Counsel a/w. Nilesh Tribhuvan, Burzin
Bharucha, Alisha Pinto, Aarti Deodhar, Jehan Fulwadiwala i/b.
White and Briefs, Advocates and Solicitors, for the Applicant.
Mr. Deepak Thakre, Public Prosecutor a/w. Rutuja Ambekar, APP,
for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Sudeep Pasbola i/b. Bhavesh Thakur, for the original
complainant.
-----
WITH
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION [ST.] NO.3407 OF 2020
Manpreet Singh Avinder Singh Vijan ..Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
1 / 28
2 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group
-----
Mr. Subhash Jha, a/w. Nilesh Tribhuvan, Burzin Bharucha, Alisha
Pinto, Aarti Deodhar, Jehan Fulwadiwala i/b. White and Briefs,
Advocates and Solicitors, for the Applicant.
Mr. Deepak Thakre, Public Prosecutor a/w. Rutuja Ambekar, APP,
for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Sudeep Pasbola i/b. Bhavesh Thakur, for the original
complainant.
-----
WITH
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION [ST.] NO.3575 OF 2020
Baldev Singh Vijan ..Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
-----
Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel a/w. Ajinkya Badar, for the
Applicant.
Mr. Deepak Thakre, Public Prosecutor a/w. Rutuja Ambekar, APP,
for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Sudeep Pasbola i/b. Bhavesh Thakur, for the original
complainant.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
RESERVED ON : 29.10.2020
PRONOUNCED ON : 04.11.2020
ORDER:
1. All these applications are decided by this common order because they arise out of the same offence registered with the 2 / 28 3 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group Economic Offences Wing [EOW] and pertain to the same investigation.
2. Initially, FIR was lodged vide C.R. No.191/2019 registered with Govandi Police Station, Mumbai on 7.9.2019 under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the investigation was taken over by EOW. They registered their own offence vide C.R. No.80/2019. All the Applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with this offence. For the sake of convenience, all the Applicants are hereinafter referred to, by their names.
Allegations in the FIR
3. The FIR is lodged by one Jasbir Singh Ishwarsingh Vijan. He has given details of his brothers and their family members. He had eight brothers including himself, they are, (1) Harnam Singh (deceased), (2) Joginder Singh (expired after lodging of the FIR), (3) Amrik Singh (deceased), (4) Surender Singh, (5) Jagjit Singh, (6) Baldev Singh and (7) Avinder Singh.
4. Out of these brothers, Jagit Singh and Baldev Singh are the Applicants in these Applications. Applicant-Harvinder Singh is 3 / 28 4 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group son of Joginder Singh (deceased). Applicant-Manpreet Singh is son of AmriK Singh (deceased). The first informant mentioned in his FIR that their family had joint properties and joint businesses. They are controlled by the family. Their businesses are spread throughout India. The informant, his brothers and family members have lawful shares in these enterprises.
5. On 10.2.2001, all the members executed a Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] stating that all the brothers would work jointly and honestly. In the year 2008, some dispute arose. The informant was kept in dark and some decisions amounting to criminal offences were taken and executed by some of the members of the family.
6. In the year 2007, the informant became suspicious about a possible transaction for sale of the land belonging to the joint property of the Applicants and others owned in the name of Silver Chem Industries to M/s. Scottish Chemicals. The informant had sent a notice, through his Advocates to M/s. Scottish Chemicals on 20.6.2017. He received a reply on 11.5.2019. At that time, the informant came to know that said property was 4 / 28 5 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group purchased by M/s. Scottish Chemicals. The informant, then, made further enquiries and he came to know that he himself and his brother Avinder Singh were cheated. They suffered losses due to the criminal activities of some of the brothers. The FIR mentions four particular instances of fraudulent transactions. They are as follows:-
i. The informant was one of the Partners of M/s. Perkins Automobile (India). He had 40% shares in the firm. Other partners were Janak Kaur Vijan (wife of informant's brother Joginder Singh Vijan) having 15% shares, Amarik Singh Vijan (another brother) having 10% shares, and Satvinder Singh Kaur (wife of informant's brother Surender Singh) having 35% shares. The firm had a show-room at Deonar. They were having Gala Nos.4/A, 5/A and 6/A at Borla village, Kurla, admeasuring 450 square feet. The informant's brother Joginder Singh (deceased) and his son Applicant-Harvinder Singh registered separate Deeds of Transfer on 15.6.2005. At the time of registration, for transfer of Gala No.4/A Harvinder Singh impersonated the informant and signed in 5 / 28
6 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group his place. That document bears the photograph of Harvinder Singh in front of the informant's name. By that document the show-room No.4/A was transferred to the Applicant Jagjit Singh and his daughter Jaspreet Kaur. Joginder Singh has no connection with M/s. Perkins Automobile, and yet he transferred Gala Nos.5/A, 6/A and 7/A to Jagjit Singh and his daughter Jaspreet Kaur. The FIR further mentions that the documents pertaining to Gala Nos.5/A, 6/A and 7/A were also forged. Gala No.7/A was not even existing. Based on these forged documents, the accused even took loans from different banks on Gala No.7/A. Joginder Singh transferred Gala Nos.5/A, 6/A and 7/A to his family members and Harvinder Singh transferred Gala No.4A to Jagjit Singh and Jaspreet Kaur.
ii. The informant, Harnam Singh (deceased), Joginder Singh and Surender Singh were joint owners of plot No.2, Survey No.53, Hissa No.6, City Survey No.435 admeasuring 1698 sq. ft. at Chembur. On 24.8.2004, Sunrender Singh and Jagjit Singh prepared a forged Power of Attorney in favour of Amrik 6 / 28 7 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group Singh. The Applicant-Harvinder Singh impersonated Amrik Singh and signed in front of Amrik Singh's name. The document bears the photograph of Harvinder Singh in place of Amrik Singh. Harnam Singh had expired in the year 1997 and, yet, he was shown to be present at the time of registration of that document and Surender Singh signed in his place. The Applicant-Jagjit Singh signed in place of the first informant. This was a clear forgery. According to the first informant, by using that forged document, he was put to losses to the tune of Rs.3.33 Crores.
iii. The informant had a common property in the name of Silver Chem Industries, which was a Partnership firm. It had a property at Taloja MIDC being Plots No.J-23 and J-24 admeasuring 4980 sq. ft. The accused Surender Singh and the Applicant-Baldev Singh sold that plots to M/s. Scottish Chemicals at a very low price of Rs.4 Crores, thereby causing loss to the tune of Rs.2.50 Crores to the informant. On further enquiries and after obtaining documents, the informant came to know that the purported Deed of 7 / 28 8 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group Retirement in respect of Silver Chem Industries was used in the transaction. The document was tampered with. The deed showed that Avinder Singh and Narender Singh had retired from the Partnership. That was not true. The accused Surender Singh and the Applicant-Baldev Singh had signed in place of Avinder Singh and Narender Singh and have created this forged document. By using that forged document, the land belonging to Silver Chem Industries was transferred to M/s. Silver Chem Industries (B) Private Limited of which Surender Singh and Baldev Singh were the Directors. This company, in turn, transferred that property to M/s. Scottish Chemicals. The Deed of Retirement and other documents, purportedly executed in the years 1991 and 1993, were forged documents.
iv. The informant's joint property situated at village Borla bearing Plot No.2, Survey No.53, Hissa No.3, 5, 6 (Part), City Survey No.435 (Part), Chembur, admeasuring 1618 sq. mtrs. was mortgaged with Indian Overseas Bank and loan was obtained. At the time of registration of those documents, the 8 / 28 9 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group Applicant-Manpreet Singh impersonated Surender Singh. The informant was impersonated by the Applicant-Baldev Singh. The mortgage deed was signed by the Applicant- Jagjit Singh as a witness. Harnam Singh was impersonated by one Mohan Singh Bhagat. Based on that document, a loan was obtained in the name of M/s. Numar In Motor (India) Private Limited.
. Thus by use of these forged documents, the informant was put to losses of around Rs.11.83 Crores. Based on these allegations, the FIR is lodged.
7. Heard Mr.Sanjog Parab, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant-Jagjit Singh, Mr. Rizwan Merchant, learned Counsel for the Applicant-Harvinder Singh, Mr. Subhash Jha, learned Counsel for the Applicant-Manpreet Singh and Mr. A.P. Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant-Baldev Singh. Mr. Deepak Thakre, learned Public Prosecutor appeared for the Respondent- State and Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, learned Counsel appeared for the first informant.
9 / 28
10 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group
8. While arguing for the Applicant-Jagjit Singh, Mr. Parab made following submissions:-
i. He submitted that the MOU executed in the year 2001 by all the brothers contained an arbitration clause, which was invoked by the first informant when he sent a notice on 7.5.2008. He, therefore, submitted that if there was any dispute, it was a subject matter of arbitration and FIR could not have been lodged by the first informant. Mr. Parab invited my attention to various orders passed in the Suit (Lodging) No.441/2014 filed by the informant on the Original Side of this Court.
ii. Mr. Parab submitted that the dispute was a subject matter of the Suit and ad-interim injunction was granted by this Court way back on 8.5.2014. There was no reference to the transactions mentioned in the FIR. Subsequent orders dated 27.4.2017, 8.6.2017, 21.11.2019, 28.11.2019 and 16.12.2019 indicate that there were serious efforts for settlement between the parties. The order dated 16.12.2019 records that the informant was not willing for any mediation. 10 / 28
11 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group It was recorded by consent of the parties that the parties were no more interested in mediation.
iii. He submitted that the Applicant - Jagjit Singh was on interim bail from 26.9.2019 till 16.10.2020 when his application for anticipatory bail was pending before the Sessions Court. He submitted that the Applicant had always offered to cooperate with the investigation, but, he was not called to the investigating agency's offiec even once during this one year. Mr. Parab submitted that the Applicant's conduct is above board. He is 75 years of age. The FIR is filed only as a tool to extract money.
9. Mr. Merchant, appearing for the Applicant-Harvinder Singh made following submissions:
i. He submitted that the FIR relates to the allegations of impersonation and forgery. These acts fall within the meaning of Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act, 1908. Separate provision for prosecution under that Act is provided and, therefore, the prosecution can only be under 11 / 28 12 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group that Act and not under the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, registration of FIR and consequent investigation for the offences under IPC was not permissible.
ii. Mr. Merchant submitted that the FIR is lodged by the informant when the settlement talks were not going on in accordance with the wish of the first informant. He submitted that by the orders passed in the Suit, status quo was maintained since the year 2014 and, therefore, dominion of the property was retained as it stood then. He, therefore, submitted that Section 406 of IPC is also not made out.
iii. Mr. Merchant further submitted that filing of the suit in the year 2014 is not mentioned in the FIR. This amounts to suppression by the first informant and, therefore, unfair advantage is obtained by him which amounts to a fraud. iv. Mr. Merchant also submitted that it was a civil dispute between the close family members and, therefore, there was no necessity of arrest of the Applicants.
v. He further submitted that the informant himself had 12 / 28 13 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group transferred one of the properties at Chandigarh in the year 2002. He, therefore, cannot have a separate yardsticks for his other family members objecting to their transfer of other properties.
vi. He submitted that even this Applicant was protected by interim relief in the Sessions Court; and, yet, for about a year he was not called for interrogation. He finally submitted that all the documents would be available in the Sub-Registrar's Office and, therefore, there was no necessity of interrogation for recovery of those documents. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the Applicant was not warranted.
10. Mr. Jha representing the Applicant-Manpreet Singh made following submissions:
i. He submitted that the FIR itself is a product of fraud.
Inspite of various orders passed in the Suit by this Court on the Original Side, filing of this FIR itself amounts to contempt of court.
ii. According to Mr. Jha the informant himself deserves to go to jail. He submitted that there was a delay of more than 13 / 28 14 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group 15 years from the date of the transaction till lodging of the FIR. No satisfactory explanation is offered in that behalf.
iii. Mr. Jha submitted that all these allegations pertain to the registered documents and there is a presumption in law that all the registered documents are validly executed. Any defect in those documents is required to be established before the Court and not before the Police.
iv. He submitted that as per the judgment of Siddhram Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others1, if there was apparent collusion between the Police and the first informant, then, the accused must be granted relief and action must be taken against the informant and the police. He submitted that in the notice dated 7.5.2008 itself forgery was alleged. There was a suit which was filed for declaration that said MOU executed in the year 2001 was valid; and yet, inspite of that, this FIR is lodged. All these three things cannot go together.
v. He submitted that the contents of the FIR are untrue and 1 (2011) 1 SCC 691 14 / 28 15 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group the first informant is fully aware of this. The facts of filing of the Suit and various orders obtained therein were suppressed and, therefore, lodging of the FIR itself is fraudulent, and hence, it is void ab initio. vi. He submitted that the Applicant-Manpreet Singh is referred to by his name in the 4th transaction in the list mentioned in the FIR; and at that time allegedly the Applicant-Manpreet Singh has impersonated Surinder Singh and had given his own fingerprints. He submitted that said transaction in the year 2005 was in respect of taking loan by mortgaging property. The loan is repaid long ago and hence no offence was made out.
vii. He further submitted that the offence of impersonation as mentioned under Section 416 of IPC was punishable under Section 419, which is a bailable offence.
11. Mr. Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant- Baldev Singh made following submissions :
i. Mr. Mundargi adopted all the arguments made by other 15 / 28 16 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group Counsel for other Applicants. He submitted that the behavioural pattern of the family shows that everybody was aware of the transactions entered into by all the other members and, therefore, it was not possible that any such transactions, which were subject matter of the FIR could have been entered into by the Applicants without the knowledge and consent of the first informant.
ii. He submitted that there are no allegations against the Applicant-Baldev Singh in respect of first and second transaction in the list mentioned in the FIR. According to Mr. Mundargi the Applicant-Baldev Singh's name is mentioned in respect of transaction at Sr. No.3 in the first information report. This was in connection with sale of land belonging to M/s. Silver Chem Industries to M/s. Scottish Chemicals. In that transaction, the real aggrieved party was Avinder Singh, but, he has not come forward and he has no grievance. Therefore, the first informant had no real reason to involve the Applicant-Baldev Singh in the allegations mentioned in the FIR. In the fourth 16 / 28 17 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group transaction, the loan taken was already repaid. iii. He submitted that the allegations pertain to the documentary evidence and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not necessary.
12. The learned Counsel for the Applicants relied on various judgments, which shall be discussed in the following paragraphs.
Submission on behalf of the Respondent-State and orig.complainant
13. Mr. Thakre, learned Public Prosecutor opposed this application. He submitted that the relevant documents are taken charge of from the office of the Sub-Registrar. These documents support the case of the first informant. These documents without an iota of doubt shows that the informant and others were impersonated at the time of registration of these documents. Their signatures were forged, and it can never be argued that no fraud was committed or no forgery had taken place.
14. He relied on the statements of witnesses like Sachin Dadarkar, Purander Karkera and Rajesh Khalate. They had put their signatures as witnesses on some forged documents, which are 17 / 28 18 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group subject matters of this FIR. All these witnesses had supported the first informant's case and have stated that the persons who were impersonated were not present when the documents were registered.
15. Mr. Thakre pointed out the case of the investigating agency that the Applicant-Baldev Singh and Jagjit Singh had previous case against him being C.R. No.31/2009 under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC registered at EOW. The charge-sheet in that case was filed.
16. The Applicant-Harvinder Singh has following previous cases against him:
[i] Andheri Police Station being C.R. No.302/2019 under Sections 408, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC.
[ii] MIDC Police Station, Mumbai being C.R. No.575/2016 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B of IPC.
[iii] Govandi Police Station, Mumbai being C.R. No.259/2019 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 read with 120-B of IPC.
17. The Applicant-Manpreet Singh has following offences against him:
[i] Bhoiwada Police Station, Mumbai being C.R. No.179/2013 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 read with 34 of IPC.
18 / 28 19 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group [ii] Govandi Police Station, Mumbai being C.R. No.11/2020 under Sections 420, 406 read with 34 of IPC.
18. Mr. Thakre, therefore, strongly opposed grant of anticipatory bail. He submitted that the contention that the offences are the subject matter of the Registration Act and not of IPC is not correct as the allegations pertain to all IPC Sections applied against the present Applicants, which require custodial interrogation.
19. Mr.Pasbola supported the Public Prosecutors arguments. He further submitted that the offence is serious. All the ingredients of offences are made out against all the Applicants. There was no delay as the informant was kept in dark by the accused for a long period. There was no suppression of facts in FIR. The informant was put to losses by the misdeeds of all the Applicants. Therefore, they do not deserve the protection of anticipatory bail.
Reasoning
20. I have considered all these submissions.
21. The FIR, in detail, has described as to how the offences are committed. The allegations are not without support. The 19 / 28 20 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group investigation carried out so far and in particular the documents seized from the office of the Sub-Registrar support the informant's case fully.
22. The first informant has explained that only after he started making enquiries in respect of the transaction of M/s. Silver Chem Industries, after M/s. Scottish Chemicals sent a reply to his notice on 11.5.2019, he came to know about all these transactions which were exfacie fraudulent transactions. Therefore, there was no delay in lodging the FIR because the informant himself came to know about these transactions in the year 2019 though the transactions actually had taken place much earlier. The nature of execution and registration of these documents show that it was not possible for the informant to have known execution and registration of these documents.
23. The submission that the loan obtained on the property was already repaid does not help the Applicants. The loan was obtained from the banks on forged documents by fraudulent means behind the back of the present first informant. The allegations show that the informant had indeed been put to heavy 20 / 28 21 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group losses by his own near family members. Therefore, just because the Applicants are close family members and some of them are even senior citizens, that by itself, does not entitle them to protection of anticipatory bail.
24. The manner of registration of these documents is also suspicious. It is apparent that the documents were registered without verifying identity of the persons and the accused who had remained present at the time of registration. Therefore, it is more than clear that some Public Servants are also involved in these transactions, and, in particular, in registration of such documents. This requires custodial interrogation of the accused to find the scope, manner and details of the offence and to find out involvement of others.
25. The submission of Mr. Merchant that when there is impersonation at the time of registration of documents, then, the prosecution can only be lodged under the procedure given under Section 83 of the Registration Act, 1980, is not correct. This special procedure is pertaining only to the offence under the said Act and particularly under Section 82 of the said Act. However, 21 / 28 22 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group the acts also fall within the definitions of other offences under Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the investigation and trial for the offences under the IPC is perfectly legal and valid.
26. The informant himself selling a joint property at Chandigarh does not make any difference to his case in the FIR because it was a separate transaction. The transactions which are subject matter of FIR are fraudulent in nature. They were completed without knowledge of the informant.
27. There is no substance in the argument of Mr. Jha that there is presumption in respect of every registered document that it is a validly executed document. According to Mr. Jha, the question of validity of execution of such documents can be decided in the Court, is also not correct. Fraud was played at the very time of registration of documents. Therefore, those documents were not even validly registered documents.
28. The case of forgery is clearly made out. Forgery was committed for the purpose of cheating and causing loss to the informant. All the serious offences under IPC are clearly divulged. Hence, investigation on this FIR is absolutely necessary. There is 22 / 28 23 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group nothing illegal about it.
29. The contention that the civil suit and various orders passed in that suit have not been mentioned in the FIR amounts to suppression of facts; also does not affect the first informant's case. The Civil Suit was filed when the first informant was not aware of these fraudulent transactions. The orders passed in the Civil Suit are not in connection with the fraudulent transactions which are subject matter of the FIR.
30. There is no force in the submission that the FIR is lodged only to pressurize the Applicants. From the allegations and the material collected by the investigating agency, the commission of offence and wrongful loss caused to the informant is obvious and, therefore, it cannot be said that to extract more money, this FIR is lodged. The accused have deprived the informant of his lawful property.
31. It is true that the Applicants were on interim protection in the Sessions Court for a long period. However, that by itself will not entitle the Applicants to have protection of anticipatory bail, when recovery of documents is not the only issue. The manner of 23 / 28 24 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group commission of offence and involvement of other accused including the Public Servants is a serious question, which can be answered only by custodial interrogation of the Applicants.
32. The learned Counsel for the Applicants relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others2. Said judgment discusses the possibility of arrest after registration of FIR in Paragraphs-106 to 114 of the said judgment. It was observed in Paragraph-109 that the registration of FIR under Section 154 of the Code and arrest of an accused under Section 41 were two entirely different things. It was not correct to say that just because FIR was registered, the accused could be arrested immediately. It was observed that the remedy lies in strictly enforcing safeguards available against arbitrary arrest made by the police and not in allowing the police to avoid mandatory registration of FIR when the information disclosed commission of a cognizable offence. . In this judgment of Lalita Kumari (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court basically had considered the requirements of 2 (2014) 2 SCC 1 24 / 28 25 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group registration of FIR. In the present case, the investigating agency has clearly made out a case for arrest for the purpose of custodial interrogation.
33. Mr. Jha relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Ramesh Gandhi 3. It is observed in that case that the judgment obtained by non- disclosure of all necessary facts tantamounts to a judgment obtained by fraud; and such a judgment is a nullity. According to Mr. Jha, the FIR in this case suffers from the vice of suppression of material facts and in particular suppression of filing of the suit and orders passed therein.
. This judgment in the case of Ramesh Gandhi (supra) was with reference to judgment obtained by non-disclosure of necessary facts. In the present case, Mr. Jha is attacking the first information report which is a subject matter of investigation. The Civil Suit was for the reliefs of declaration etc. claimed in that Suit. Filing of the Suit in no way affects the present investigation.
34. Mr. Jha also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme 3 (2012) 1 SCC 476 25 / 28 26 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group Court in the case of Moti Lal Songara Vs. Prem Prakash alias Pappu and another4. In this case, the accused had played fraud on Court by suppressing material facts in order to get the order of quashment of Magistrate's order by suppression of facts. Even this judgment does not help Mr. Jha's submissions.
35. Mr. Parab relied on an order of Single Judge of this Court passed in the case of Vijay Ramchandra Khatade Vs. The State of Maharashtra5. In that case, anticipatory bail was granted because the disputed document was already seized from the office of the revenue authorities and the specimen handwriting was already taken.
. Anticipatory bail is a discretionary order and grant of such a relief depends on facts of each case. In the case of Vijay Khatade (supra), there was only one disputed document. In the present case, there is a series of transactions involving forgery, impersonation and conspiracy etc.. Therefore, the facts of this case is not applicable to the present case.
4 (2013) 9 SCC 199 5 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 7305 26 / 28 27 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group
36. Mr. Parab also relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan6. . This case does not help Mr. Parab's contention. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that anticipatory bail application will have to be decided by exercising the Court's discretion upon examination of facts and circumstances. It cannot be denied only on technical grounds. I am deciding these Applications on merits of the matter and not on technical grounds.
37. Mr. Parab further relied on the case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat and another 7. It was observed in Paragraph-25.1 that the complaint filed against the accused needs to be thoroughly examined, including the aspect whether the complainant has filed a false or frivolous complaint on earlier occasion. The Court should also examine the fact whether there is any family dispute between the accused and the complainant and the complainant must be clearly told that if the complaint is found to be false or frivolous, then strict action will be taken against him in accordance with law. If the connivance between the complainant 6 (2010) 1 SCC 684 7 (2016) 1 SCC 152 27 / 28 28 ABA-ST-3357-3404-3407-3575-2020-group and the investigating officer is established then action be taken against the investigating officer in accordance with law. In the present case, the documents seized by the investigating agency clearly establish the forgery and fraud committed by the accused persons. Therefore, in this case, these observations will not help the Applicants. There is no real basis to observe that there is collusion between the first informant and the investigating agency.
38. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that serious offences are committed by the Applicants. Custodial interrogation of the Applicants is absolutely necessary. The antecedents against the Applicants is also a strong circumstance against them. The relief of anticipatory bail in these Applications cannot be granted. Hence, the applications are dismissed.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
39. At this stage, learned Counsel for the Applicants prayed for stay of this order since the Applicants were protected by the Sessions Court for a long period. Since, I have reached the conclusion that the offence is serious and custodial interrogation of the Applicants is necessary, stay is not granted.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Deshmane (PS) Digitally signed by Pradeepkumar Pradeepkumar P. Deshmane P. Deshmane Date:
2020.11.04 12:16:18 +0530 28 / 28