Bombay High Court
Vallabhji Moorji Dhedhia vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 February, 2024
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2024:BHC-AS:10779
:1: 28.aba-1532-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1532 OF 2021
Vallabhji Moorji Dhedia .... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & another .... Respondents
______
Ms. Racheeta Dhuru, Advocate i/b. Avinash B. Avhad for the
Applicant.
Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Dilip Shukla, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
______
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 29th FEBRUARY, 2024
P.C. :
1. The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in
connection with C.R.No.204/2019 registered at Bhayandar
Police Station on 9.7.2019 under sections 420, 465, 467, 468,
471 of IPC.
2. Heard Ms. Racheeta Dhuru, learned counsel for
the Applicant, Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, learned APP for
the Respondent-State and Mr. Dilip Shukla, learned counsel for
the Respondent No.2.
PRADIPKUMAR 1 of 9
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE
Digitally signed by
PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE Deshmane(PS)
Date: 2024.03.06
11:28:16 +0530
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2024 19:08:25 :::
:2: 28.aba-1532-21.odt
3. The informant has stated that he along with his
brother Ratilal were having the business of building
construction and they had a shop at Bhayandar. The
informant, his brother Ratilal and the present Applicant were
conducting the construction business in the year 1995. In the
year 1996, there was a dispute between the brothers on the
one hand and the Applicant on the other hand. One Arunbhai
Kadam mediated between them. The informant entrusted his
business with his brother Ratilal and went to Ahmedabad and
started his own business. In the meantime, he used to come
to Mumbai and used to look after his brother Ratilal's
business. As Arun Kadam had mediated, the Applicant gave 25
Ares land at Survey No.122 at Bhayandar to Ratilal and gave
46 Ares out of 93 Ares at new Survey No.168 at Bhayandar to
the informant. On 15.3.1998, the Applicant had executed an
agreement for development-cum-sale, power of attorney,
declaration-cum-indemnity and possession letter. The
documents were executed on a stamp paper. The informant's
brother Ratilal raised construction on the land which came to
2 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2024 19:08:25 :::
:3: 28.aba-1532-21.odt
his share from the Applicant. The informant on the other hand
had kept the land vacant. In the year 2005, the informant
requested the Applicant to register the land in the informant's
name. But, the Applicant was avoiding to do it. Therefore, the
informant met the original owner of the land Firoz Irani in the
year 2005 because he had sold that piece of land, to the
Applicant, which had come to the share of the informant. The
land still stood in the name of Firoz Irani. Said Irani assured
the informant of taking a decision regarding the same.
4. In August, 2018, the informant came across an
advertisement mentioning that some third party was to
develop the same piece of land. The informant's brother met
Firoz Irani and inquired about it, who in turn told the
informant's brother that he was not aware of the transaction
between the Applicant and the informant. Thereafter there
was some correspondence between the parties. However, the
land was not transferred in the name of the informant. The
informant filed Regular Civil Suit No.108/2019 in the Civil
Court at Thane. In that Civil Suit, the Applicant had filed
3 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2024 19:08:25 :::
:4: 28.aba-1532-21.odt
certain documents which included copy of the sale-deed dated
19.6.1995 and the deed of cancellation between the same
parties dated 29.6.1995. There was another development
agreement between Irani and the Applicant dated 19.6.1995.
According to the first informant, all these documents were
doubtful and some of the documents were backdated.
5. The informant has further mentioned that the
Applicant had taken Rs.60 Lakhs in cash and had given that
land for sale and development to the informant, but, the
informant could not develop that land because the land was
never transferred in his name. On these allegations, the FIR is
lodged.
6. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that
the Applicant has not committed any offence. The grievance
of the informant is in the nature of civil dispute for which the
informant has already initiated civil proceedings before the
competent Civil Court. She submitted that after interim
application for injunction made by the informant was rejected,
this FIR is lodged only to pressurize the Applicant. The
4 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2024 19:08:25 :::
:5: 28.aba-1532-21.odt
transaction is old and after about twenty years, the FIR is
lodged. At this belated stage, the Applicant's custodial
interrogation is not warranted. Entire case is based on
documentary evidence. The Applicant has provided all the
documents to the investigating agency. The informant has
since passed away and, therefore, the custodial interrogation
will not be useful as the informant is no more and, therefore,
the Applicant's case cannot be verified through custodial
interrogation.
7. Learned APP submitted that the Applicant has not
furnished the original copies of this transaction. She
submitted that the Applicant be directed to cooperate with the
investigation. She relied on the allegations in the FIR.
According to her, some of the documents recovered during the
investigation indicate that some of the signatures could be
forged. She, therefore, submitted that the custodial
interrogation of the Applicant is necessary.
8. Learned counsel for the wife of the first informant
submitted that the informant has passed away and his wife has
5 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2024 19:08:25 :::
:6: 28.aba-1532-21.odt
stepped into his shoes to contest the civil suit filed by the
informant. He submitted that the informant was cheated to a
large sum of Rs.60 Lakhs. He has not got his land and,
therefore, the offence is serious. For verification of the
documents and for taking custody of the original documents
the Applicant's custodial interrogation is necessary. The
complaint was made one year prior to the FIR but since
inquiry was going on it took one year for registration of the
FIR.
9. I have considered these submissions. From the
above discussion, it is quite clear that the matter pertains to
the documentary evidence. Significantly the entire allegations
are pertaining to the documents purportedly executed in the
year 1998 between the Applicant and the informant The
original agreements between the original owner Irani and the
Applicant was from the year 1995. The informant had met said
Irani in the year 2005 and thereafter further transaction and
further inquiry was made in the year 2018 when the informant
6 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2024 19:08:25 :::
:7: 28.aba-1532-21.odt
came across the notice issued in a newspaper regarding
development of the same property.
10. All these years the informant had not taken any
steps to safeguard his interest or to get the land registered in
his name. Therefore, for about twenty years the informant
had not taken any positive steps to safeguard his interest if the
Applicant had not transferred the land in his name having
accepted the amount of Rs.60 Lakhs in the year 1998 itself.
This is rather unusual.
11. However, I am not deciding the Civil rights of the
parties and, therefore, at this stage it is not possible to record
any further finding regarding whether said amount was
actually paid or not.
12. I am more concerned about the delay caused by
the first informant in making the grievance about the same
transaction. As far as the civil rights of the parties are
concerned, as mentioned earlier, a Civil Suit is already pending
7 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2024 19:08:25 :::
:8: 28.aba-1532-21.odt
between the parties. It will take its own course. Ultimately
their civil rights can be decided in that civil suit.
13. Today I am only considering the necessity of
custodial interrogation of the Applicant. In that context, it
must be noted that the informant has passed away. Therefore,
the custodial interrogation of the Applicant will not facilitate
the investigating agency to confront the Applicant with the
original story of the first informant. At the highest the
investigation can only be in respect of the documents.
14. Most of the documents are already in the custody
of the investigating agency. Whatever documents are
important, they could be produced by the informant's wife.
The Applicant was on interim protection in this application
since 5.7.2021. There are no allegations that the Applicant
had misused that interim protection. The Applicant can still
be directed to cooperate with the investigating agency if they
want his presence for investigation purposes.
8 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2024 19:08:25 :::
:9: 28.aba-1532-21.odt
15. In this view of the matter, the Applicant can be
protected under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. with directions to him
to cooperate with the investigation. It is made clear that this
order will not come in the way of either of the parties to
establish their respective civil rights. This order is passed only
for the purpose of deciding the question of protection under
section 438 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) In the event of his arrest in connection with C.R.No.204/2019 registered at Bhayandar Police Station, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when called and shall cooperate with the investigation.
(iii) Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Deshmane (PS) 9 of 9 ::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2024 19:08:25 :::