Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shravan Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 August, 2018
-:1:-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY, J
M.Cr.C.No. 28287/2018
Shravan Patel
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
=================
Shri Surendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Som
Prakash Mishra, Shri Sankalp Kochar and Shri Shubham Singh,
learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Arvind Singh, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
Shri R.S. Surjewala assisted with Shri Kunal Vajani, Shri
Nikhil Tiwari, Shri Devashish Sakalkar and Shri Paras Anand,
learned counsel for the objector.
==================================
ORDER
Reserved on 10/08/2018 Passed on 14/08/2018 This is first bail application filed by the applicant Shravan Patel under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicant apprehend his arrest in connection with Crime No.258/2014 registered at P.S. Lordganj, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 403, 404, 406, 411, 120-B of the IPC.
As per prosecution case, on 22/10/2012 complainants Neena Patel and Gautam Patel filed a written complaint at Police Station Lordganj, District Jabalpur averring that Late Shri Parmanand Bhai Patel was a businessman in Jabalpur holding a vast Estate of Wealth -:2:- and properties. He suffered a massive brain stroke on or around 2- 3/01/1994 due to which he got paralyzed and this ailment continued till his death. It is alleged that when he was incapable of taking any decision, the present applicant and co-accused persons Mrs. Jyotsnaben Patel, Mrs. Sonal K. Amin and Ms. Pooja Patel @ Roopa Kumar accessed the accounts of Late Shri Parmanand Bhai Patel illegally and various transactions were also done by them. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, during preliminary enquiry Police recorded the statement of complainants and also obtained account statements etc. Police also received a complaint from the Office of Wadiya Gandhi & Company, Advocates Solicitors and Notary Mumbai, wherein they narrated the facts as mentioned in the complaint dated 22/10/2012. Apart from that it was also stated that the applicant and co-accused persons illegally declared that the entire estate of Late Shri Parmanand Bhai Patel was only Rs.5,54 lakhs. On the basis of aforesaid, on 02/07/2014 Police Station Lordganj, Jabalpur registered Crime No.258/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 403, 404, 406, 411, 120-B of the IPC against the applicant and co-accused persons Mrs. Jyotsnaben Patel, Mrs. Sonal K. Amin and Ms. Pooja Patel @ Roopa Kumar. Thereafter, applicant and other co-accused persons filed an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial Court. During pendency of that application Police filed first closure report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur, on 16/08/2014. Which was registered as MJC- R No.111/2015. In which learned CJM passed an order on 13/07/2016 and directed for further investigation on the following issues :-
(i) Whether the partnership firm M/s Mohanlal Hargovinddas was attempted to be illegally dissolved in February, 2000 ?
(ii) Whether 10000/- shares of Mohanlal Hargovinddas Bidi Udyog Pvt. Ltd. were illegally transferred in the name of Late Mr. Parmanand Bhai Patel in the year 1996 in which the name of Mrs. Jyotsnaben Patel was wrongly entered in the year 2001 ?-:3:-
(iii) Whether the shares of Late Shri Parmanand Bhai Patel in Kohinoor Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd., U.P. Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd., Vidarbha Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd and Central India Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. were illegally transferred in the name of Mrs. Jyotsnaben Patel in the year 2001 ?
(iv) Whether the shares of Late Shri Parmanand Bhai Patel in Southern India Bidi Works Pvt. Ltd., Param Jyoti Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd.
and Anand Jyoti Trading Ltd. were illegally transferred in the name of Mrs. Jyotsnaben Patel in the year 2001 ?
(v) Whether a property of approximately 2.75 Acres in Jabalpur was illegally sold to Dr. Chau in the year 2004 ?
Pursuant to that, Police further investigated into the matter and on 24/01/2017 again filed second closure report before the learned CJM, Jabalpur, which was registered as MJC No.126/2017. Vide order dated 12/02/2018 learned CJM after recording the statements of Hardayal Singh (Investigating Officer), Gautam Patel (complainant) again rejected the closure report and remanded the matter back for further investigation holding that all the points as directed vide order dated 13/07/2016 have not been investigated by the Police properly. In compliance of order dated 12/02/2018 passed by learned CJM, Jabalpur Police has again started the investigation in the matter, due to which applicant apprehends his arrest.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the crime. The applicant, co-accused persons and complainants are close relatives. The learned C.J.M, Jabalpur passed the order dated 13/07/2016 and 12/02/2018 raising certain points for further investigation of the matter, but neither the Court nor the complainants have assigned any direct role of the applicant in respect of commission of alleged crime. The applicant is not at all involved in any type of transactions in respect of the allegations levelled by the complainants in their statements. He further submitted that the main beneficiary in respect of the aforesaid transactions is Mr. Siddharth Patel. The applicant had also filed a -:4:- complaint case against Mr. Siddharth Patel and Manager Himmat Shah in the year 2011 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jabalpur. The Police after investigation found nothing against the applicant and therefore after investigation filed closure report twice . So far as further investigation as directed by the learned CJM is concerned, applicant did not dissolve the firm M/s Mohanlal Hargovinddas. On the contrary applicant filed Company Petition and Civil Suit regarding 10,000 shares of firm M/s Mohanlal Hargovinddas, which were earlier owned by Late Shri Parmanand Bhai Patel. Applicant did not take any share out of 10000 shares of 'A' group owned by Late Shri Parmanand Bhai Patel as those shares earlier were transferred in the name of Mrs. Jyotsnaben Patel in 2001 and thereafter the same were transferred in the name of Siddharth Kumar Patel. Share of other companies of Late Shri Parmanand Bhai Patel were also transferred in the name of Mrs. Jyotsnaben Patel and not in the name of applicant. The property of Late Shri Parmanand Bhai Patel was also sold by Mrs. Jyotsnaben Patel by registered sale deed. Applicant has no involvement in these transactions.
There is no evidence on record to show that the applicant was in any way involved in getting the shares in the firm or got any part of the property of the said firm in any way in connivance with Siddharth Kumar Patel and Mrs. Jyotsnaben Patel . The alleged transaction took place in the year 1996 to 2000, while complainants lodged the complaint in the year 2010, while Police filed closure report in the year 2018. During that period applicant cooperated in the investigation and in future too he is ready to cooperate in the crime. The applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality and in the event of arrest his reputation will be tarnished, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.
Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant opposed the prayer and submitted that from -:5:- the medical certificates of Late Shri Parmanand Bhai Patel it is clear that on 02/01/1994 he suffered hemorrhage and thereafter he did not recover from that ailment and died on 19/05/2005. It is also clear from the record that Late Shri Parmanand Bhai Patel owned 20000 shares of 'A' group in the firm. From the minutes of the meeting of the firm dated 27/03/2000 it is clear that at that time due to ailment Late Shri Parmanand Bhai Patel was not in a mental state to take any reasonable decision and taking advantage of that fact applicant, Siddharth Kumar Patel and Mrs. Jyotsnaben Patel called a meeting of said firm in which they passed a resolution and got 10000 shares of 'A' group of late Shri Parmanand Bhai Patel into their names, out of which 3750 shares were transferred in the name of the applicant, 3750 shares in the name of Siddharth Kumar Patel and 2500 shares in the name of Smt. Jyotsnaben Patel. From the minutes of the meetings dated 27/03/2000, 01/04/2000, 07/08/2000, 04/01/2001, 04/03/2001 and 23/06/2001 it is also clear that the applicant took part in the Board meetings and also took dividend of shares moreover took the decisions for taking over the business of the partnership firm and also entering into a contract worth crores of rupees with M.H. Bidi Udyog .Although applicant filed civil Suit against Siddharth Kumar Patel and others regarding grabbing the firm's share and also filed company petition and civil suit to grab Late Shri Parmanand Bhai Patel's shares in the firm and also filed private complaints. But it clearly appeared from the copy of that suit, petition and complaint that applicant filed all that matters regarding remaining 10000 shares of Late Shri Parmanand Bhai Patel in the firm M/s Mohanlal Hargovinddas. He did not state anything regarding remaining 10000 shares, out of which applicant wrongly got 3750 shares and also took profit from those shares.
They further submitted that applicant has not placed on record the documents relating to Minutes of the Board Meetings, illegal -:6:- allotments of shares, derivation of monetary benefits by the applicant in the form of dividends, so the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary in the matter. From the closure report it is clear that the Police did not take any action against him even after the direction given by the learned CJM twice, which clearly shows that the applicant interfered in the investigation, so he should not be released on anticipatory bail.
In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the minutes of the meeting, copy of which is filed by the objector in support of their objection, it did not appear that the applicant was present in any of the meetings. There are no signatures of the applicant in the minutes of the meeting, so on the basis of those minutes, it cannot be said that the applicant was also involved in the crime.
It appears from the record and documents filed by the applicant and complainant that firm namely M/s Mohanlal Hargovind Das is a partnership firm owned by Patel family and Late Shri Parmanand Bhai Patel was the controller of that firm. On 02/01/1994 Shri Parmanand Bhai Patel suffered a major cerebral hemorrhage, due to which his normal functioning and mental state was affected and during this period he was not in a mental state to take any reasonable decision and that ailment continued till his death i.e. 19/05/2005. On 27/03/2000, applicant Shravan Patel, Siddharth Patel and Mrs. Jyotsnaben Patel called a meeting of that firm in which in connivance with others, they resolved that out of 20000 shares of 'A' group, applicant will own 3750 shares, Siddharth Kumar Patel will own 3,750/- share and Mrs.Jyotsnaben Patel will own 2,500/-. Applicant by the resolution also got permission regarding purchase of Bidi's. So prima facie it appears that applicant also got monetary benefit from the firm's property by way of shares and dividends. But it also appears that it is a family dispute -:7:- of Patel family regarding their ancestral property and only one daughter of Late Shri Parmanand Bhai Patel out of his two sons and three daughters lodged that report and one interesting thing is that the complainant did not name Shri Siddharth Patel as an accused in his complaint. It is even alleged that he had also got shares from firm's property and complainant lodged this report after applicant had filed a private complaint against Siddharth Patel. The resolution by which applicant allegedly got 3250 shares of firm illegally was commenced in the year 2000, while applicant lodged the report in the year 2012 and investigation is going on till date and there is no apprehension of absconding the applicant, so without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime number, he be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and -:8:-
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.
C.C. as per rules.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge as/ Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2018.08.14 17:32:50 +05'30'