Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 September, 2019
Author: Shailendra Shukla
Bench: Shailendra Shukla
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.36521 OF 2019
(Manoj Bansal vs State of Madhya Pradesh)
Indore, Dated 20.09.2019
Mr. S.K. Vyas, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Aniruddha Gokhale, counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the non-
applicant/State.
Mr. Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the
complainant/objector.
Arguments heard.
ORDER
This is first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the applicant-Manoj Bansal as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.331/2019 registered at Police Station-Sanyogitaganj, District-Indore (MP) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The facts of the case in short was that the complainants Pramod Bansal and Vinod Bansal ran a business at Barwaha, District-Khargone along with Manoj Bansal in the name as Bansal Garden and Restaurant Private Limited. They also ran a business in Krishi Upaj Mandi under the name as M/s. Basant Prabhat Trading Corporation. The applicant-Manoj was involved in that business also along with Pramod Bansal and Vinod Bansal.
In order to look into the payments pertaining to 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.36521 OF 2019 (Manoj Bansal vs State of Madhya Pradesh) Basant Trading Corporation, the complainants opened up a account in the HDFC Bank at Badwah and received a 50 pages cheque book. The complainant gave cheque leaves from 000004 to 000015 to Manoj Bansal, these cheques were blank cheques carrying signatures of complainant Pramod Bansal, rest of the cheque leaves which were from 000001 to 000003 and from 000016 to rest of the cheque leaves were kept by the complainant. Some of the cheques given by complainant to applicant-Manoj Bansal were used for payments. The cheque leaves bearing Nos.000010 to 000015 had remained with Manoj Bansal regarding which he intimated to the complainant through a letter that he had destroyed those cheque leaves but Manoj Bansal infact had not destroyed those 5-6 cheque leaves and thereafter conspired with Ashwini Modi, a relative of Manoj and complainants who had financial dispute with the complainants-Pramod and Vinod Bansal and in furtherance of this conspiracy, Manoj Bansal handed over the cheque leave bearing 000014 to Ashwini Kumar. This cheque leave as already stated was already signed by one of the complainant and Ashwini Kumar wrote a figure of Rs.1,34,40,625/- on this cheque leave and presented the same for encashment which was got dishonoured by the Bank leading to institution of a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act'). The complainants state that they had lodged 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.36521 OF 2019 (Manoj Bansal vs State of Madhya Pradesh) a civil suit against Ashwini Modi for not paying the amount due to them and Ashwini had conspired with Manoj, a case under Section 138 of NI Act against the complainants. The complainants also state that ill intentions of Manoj could also be gathered from the fact that Manoj behind the back of complainants had transferred all the shares that the complainants held in Bansal Garden and Restaurant Private Limited regarding which another FIR has already been lodged against applicant-Manoj.
The applicant-Manoj has sought anticipatory bail in respect of allegations made against him that he conspired with Ashwini Modi and gave a cheque signed by complainants to him. It has been mentioned in written arguments submitted by Manoj that he ran a small restaurant at Badwah and is a Class-10 fail person who does not know nitty-gritty and functioning of a Company. He states that complainants Pramod and Vinod coerced him into entering into a venture with them by converting the small restaurant into a Company christened as Bansal Garden and Restuarant Private Limited. The complainants took loan from the Bank on this Company and later on resigned from this Company and thus, leaving unsecured loan to be paid by Manoj and his wife-Sheetal Bansal who was made Director after resignation of complainants from this Company. The applicant denies his liability and the allegations against him that he conspired with Ashwini 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.36521 OF 2019 (Manoj Bansal vs State of Madhya Pradesh) Modi. He instead submits that the complainants wanted him to falsely depose against Ashwini Modi by saying that the applicant had given a blank cheque to Ashwini Modi. This proposal by the complainants when declined by the applicant, he has also been roped in and made an accused. He vehemently denies having ever written any letter to the complainants regarding destruction of five cheques by him. FIR against him has been lodged to wreck vengeance and the case is totally false as per the applicant. He seeks anticipatory bail in this matter.
The objector has furnished his written objection in which it has been stated that objector entered into Krishi Upaj Mandi transaction at Barwaha under the name of Basant Prabhat Trading Corporation which was initiated in the year 2014 and business was closed in the year 2018 and thereafter the business has also been cancelled by the complainants and another venture namely; Bansal Garden and Restaurant Private Limited Company was also initiated with applicant-Manoj by complainants from which post also they resigned on 17.07.2017 and they have completely closed down the business and separated from applicant-Manoj Bansal and applicant thereafter entered into conspiracy with Ashwini Modi and in pursuance of this conspiracy, he gave cheque to Ashwini Modi which was signed by the complainants.
It has been stated that the applicant is the prime 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.36521 OF 2019 (Manoj Bansal vs State of Madhya Pradesh) accused, his custodial interrogation is required in this matter for recovery of cheque leaves from bearing Nos. 000010 to 000015 and if granted anticipatory bail, recovery would not be possible from him.
Learned counsel for the non-applicant/State has also opposed the bail application. He has pointed out to the enquiry conducted by the police in this case which is placed in the case diary. It has been pointed out that cheques given to Manoj in respect of payment of Mandi business were misutilized by Manoj and one of cheques was used for payment to Janta Galaxy which used to supply Ice-creams to Bansal Garden and Restaurant Private Limited and when complainants came to know that this cheque has wrongly been used, he intimated to Manoj that he should deposit equivalent amount to Bansal Garden and Restaurant Private Limited by HDFC Bank. It has also been found that Cheque No.000005 to 000007 was also used for Bansal Garden and Restaurant Private Limited but these cheques were cancelled by the complainants, thereafter Cheque No.000008 to 000009 which were of Rs.2.00 lakhs and 5.00 lakhs were used for payment of agriculture Mandi business and now only Cheque Nos.000010 to 000015 were with Manoj which he did not return and regarding which he wrote a letter on 17.07.2017 that he had destroyed those cheque leaves, whereas these cheque leaves were not destroyed and it is 6 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.36521 OF 2019 (Manoj Bansal vs State of Madhya Pradesh) imperative for Manoj Bansal to be interrogated in custody regarding these missing cheques one of which has found way in the hands of Ashwini Kumar.
Both the learned counsel have vehemently made submissions in their support.
Learned senior counsel appearing for applicant- Manoj Bansal submits that anticipatory bail has already been granted to Ashwini Modi and the case of applicant stands on a better footing than Ashwin, whereas learned counsel for the complainant/objector submits that no recovery was to be made from Ashwini, whereas recovery was to be made from applicant-Manoj Bansal and, therefore, custodial interrogation of applicant is a must.
Learned counsel for the complainants submits that letter dated 17.07.2017 showing destruction of cheque leaves by him carries signatures of applicant and the signatures of Sheetal Bansal, his wife which cannot be at this stage be denied by him.
Learned counsel for the complainants has furnished number of documents showing appointment of Sheetal Bansal (wife of applicant) as the Director of Company, consent letter of Sheetal Bansal, resolution of appointment letter of Sheetal Bansal, letter of objector showing resignation of Directorship, resolution accepting the resignation, letters to objector Vinod Bansal regarding outstanding liability and unsecured loans, copy of certified 7 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.36521 OF 2019 (Manoj Bansal vs State of Madhya Pradesh) copy obtained from the Registrar of Companies, status report of the Company by Ritesh Gupta, Company Secretary and these documents carry the signatures of Sheetal Bansal and Manoj Bansal and the signatures on these documents are akin to those found on application dated 17.07.2017, whereby it has been mentioned that these cheque leaves were destroyed by Manoj Bansal. Applicant-Manoj Bansal in his written arguments stated that his signatures were taken in various forms by complainants and thus, he does not deny his signatures on the documents furnished by the objector. As already stated, his signatures on those documents prima-facie match with signatures in document dated 17.07.2017. Hence, there is substance in the objection raised by the objector/complainant. Consequently, considering the fact that recovery of cheque leaves may be necessitated from the applicant-Manoj Bansal, therefore, his anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is disallowed.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE Arun/-
Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR Date: 2019.09.23 14:09:49 +05'30' 8HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.36521 OF 2019 (Manoj Bansal vs State of Madhya Pradesh)