Allahabad High Court
Dilip Kumar Chaturvedi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 August, 2023
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170085 Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9203 of 2023 Applicant :- Dilip Kumar Chaturvedi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Sajiwan Prajapati, Anjani Kumar Shahwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Ajay Kumar Bashist Singh Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Mr. N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar Bashist Singh, learned counsel for the informant.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.102 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 409, 120-B IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Mathura.
3. The facts in brief are that one Suraj Dua son of Ram Chandra Dua, who is authorized agent of Rag Vihar Apartment Private Limited, has lodged the complaint alleging therein that the complainant's company is constructing a residential colony, namely, Narsi Vihar City at Saukh Road, Mathura wherein the applicant was appointed as authorized signatory of the company for necessary works of development. It is further alleged that on 27.01.2021 the employees of the company have informed that applicant alongwith his unknown companies armed with illegal weapons came and tried to take possession over the plot of the aforesaid residential colony by stating that he has sale deed of the land. It is further alleged that the applicant and other accused persons have also given threat. It is further alleged that when the said information was given to the Management then it was found that from the company level, no sale deed was executed in favour of the applicant and during enquiry, it was found that the applicant in connivance of his subordinate prepared a false board resolution and got executed sale deed in his favour, which was registered at Sub Registrar's Office, Mathura.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The applicant was authorized signatory of the Company of the complainant i.e. Rag Vihar Apartments Pvt. Limited. The applicant was appointed for execution of sale deed in favour of the buyers. After execution of the sale deeds, all money have been deposited by the applicant in the account of the Company. As per version of the impugned complaint, the applicant being authorized signatory of the Company has executed as many as 106 sale deeds in favour of the buyers and all authorized letters are also available with the applicant. He further submits that several civil suits have been filed for cancellation of the sale deeds in question. He further submits that after lodging the FIR, the applicant and other co-accused persons have approached before this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos.2546, 966, 6360 of 2023 and different Division Benches of this Court have granted interim protection to applicant and other co-accused persons till filing of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. He further submits that in the instant matter, charge sheet has been submitted and the court below has taken cognizance on 22.05.2023. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed Criminal Revision No.293 of 2023 before the District & Sessions Judge, Mathura, which was admitted against the said order, as such, no proceeding can be initiated against the applicant but the learned court below has issued non bailable warrant against the applicant on 07.07.2023.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the veracity of the facts alleged by the complainant, can only be ascertained on the basis of evidence and documents by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The dispute in question is purely civil nature for which several suits for cancellation of sale deed has already been filed before the court below. The initiation of criminal proceeding by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant is clearly an abuse of process of court. He further submits that the crux of the dispute between the parties is whether the alleged Board Resolution on the basis whereof sale deeds have been executed by applicant and also whether sale deeds are valid or not. This issue shall necessarily has to be decided and can only be decided in the pending civil suit. The dispute is primarily a civil dispute regarding which the impugned FIR has been lodged. Several suits are pending before the court below. The applicant is bonafide purchaser of the land in question. He has purchased the land in question by the company of complainant through one Dilip Kumar Chaturvedi. He further submits that the applicant is not a public servant, as such, no offence under Section 409 IPC is made out against the applicant. The order passed by the court below is wholly illegal and contrary to the law as the criminal revision filed by the applicant against the summoning order has already been admitted, as such, the proceeding against the applicant should have been kept in abeyance during pendency of the revision.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that prima facie no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 47 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the cases of N. Raghavender vs. State of Andhar Pradesh, CBI, 2021 SC 734, Chandrapal Singh and others vs. Maharaj Singh and another, AIR 1982 SC 1238, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. And others vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and another, (2005) 1 SCC 122, Indramohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttranchal as well as this Court in the case of Awadhesh Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Lucknow and others passed in Application u/s 482 No.4432 of 2021.
7. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and have prayed for rejection of the same by submitting that Company has never sold any plot and there were no sale deed executed on company level. It was informed from the office of Sub Registrar, Mathura that applicant along with his associates, had created a fake Board of Regulation and got registered the sale deed in question. In all sale deed, the applicant along with his companions, by creating fake authority letters of the company, got the forged documents registered with the Sub-Registrar, Mathura. He has further submitted that apart from these plots, the applicant may have made fake deed of other plots, which the Company is investigating at its own level. On the basis of fake deed of deeds, they are continuously trying to forcibly occupy the valuable plots of the Company. The applicant and other accused have also threatened the Company. He has further submitted that the applicant by creating forged document of authorized signatory of the Company has executed as many as 106 sale deeds without depositing the money in the account of Rag Vihar Apartments Pvt. Ltd. thereby committed huge loss to the Company. There are serious allegations against the applicant and other co-accused persons of fraudulent misappropriate of amounts to be paid by the applicant to the Company after execution of sale deed. The FIR sets out details of alleged acts of fraud and misappropriation of money. Lastly, he has submitted that allegations are very serious and keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, applicant is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. In support of his submission, he has relied upon judgment of Apex Court in the cases of P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198, M/s Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2021 LawSuit (SC) 388 and Pratibha Manchanda and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 618.
8. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.
9. In case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.
10. Recently, in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98, the Court has enunciated the considerations that must govern the grant of anticipatory bail in the following terms:
"...While considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc."
11. In Niranjan Hem Chandra Sashittal Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that immoral acquisition of wealth destroys the energy of the people believing in honesty, and history records with agony how they have suffered; and the only redeeming fact is that collective sensibility respects such suffering as it is in consonance with constitutional morality. The emphasis was on intolerance to any kind of corruption bereft of its degree.
12. In P. Chidambaram Vs. Director Of Enforcement reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24, the Apex Court has clearly held that grant of anticipatory bail particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. In the cases of corruption the custodial interrogation of an accused is necessary because he/she may provide the information leading to discovery of material fact and relevant information.
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncement held that the economic offender should not be dealt as general offender because economic offenders run parallel economy and they are serious threat to the national economy.
14. In the present case, the applicant has executed as many as 106 sale deeds to different persons without depositing the sale consideration in the account of Company i.e. Rag Vihar Apartments Pvt. Ltd. thereby committed huge loss to the Company. The applicant also could not explain the non-deposit of the sale consideration,after execution of sale deeds, in the account of the company. Perusal of the record further discloses that there are serious allegations against the applicant and other co-accused persons of fraudulent conduct and misappropriation of the amounts, which was to be paid by the applicant to the Company after execution of sale deed.
15. It would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage because it is likely to influence the trial court. But, the evidence, collected during the investigation, prima facie indicate involvement of the applicant in the offence in question. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant.
16. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the anticipatory bail application has no merit and is liable to be rejected.
Order Date :- 23.8.2023 Ajeet