Bombay High Court
Ashok Kumar Sohanlal Garg vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 February, 2021
Bench: Prakash Deu Naik
Ganesh Lokhande 1 of 4 4-aba-1158-20-w-ia-473-21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1158 of 2020
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 473 OF 2021
Sanjay B. Mehta ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 473 OF 2021
Ashok Kumar Sohanlal Garg ... Intervener
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Sanjay B. Mehta ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
.....
Mr. Sandeep Kekane a/w. Janvhavi Barve i/b. B. K. Barve & Co.,
Advocate for the Intervener.
Mr. Jehangir Khajotia, Advocate for the Applicant in ABA.
Mr. A. R. Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent - State.
PSI- Pradeep A. More, Sewri Police Station.
.....
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 24th FEBRUARY, 2021.
PC :
1. This is an application for anticipatory bail in connection
with C.R. No. 181 of 2020, registered with Sewri Police Station for
the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of Indian Penal
Digitally
Code, 1860 ("IPC" for short). The First Information Report ("FIR" for
signed by
RajeP.
RajeP. Aher
short) was registered on 19th October, 2020.
Aher Date:
2021.03.08
15:39:09
+0530
2. The case of the complainant is that on 28 th March, 2018,
This order is corrected as per Speaking to Minute order dated 3rd March, 2021
Ganesh Lokhande 2 of 4 4-aba-1158-20-w-ia-473-21.doc
the applicant contacted the complainant to enquire about the rate of
steel plates. Thereafter on 30 th March, 2018 he represented that he
wants to purchase the goods. Since the complainant was knowing
the applicant he agreed to sell goods to him. The applicant placed
order for steel plates. Goods were delivered from time to time to the
applicant. Towards payment of the steel plates delivered to the
accused, he issued cheques for amount of Rs.19,89,216/-. The
complainant deposited the said cheques in his bank. However, the
intimation was received from the bank that the account was closed
on 17th October, 2019. The complainant alleges that the complainant
had paid an amount of Rs.5,74,000/- to induce confidence in
delivering the goods and thereafter the cheques were issued which
were dishonoured on the ground that the account was closed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is
no element of cheating. It is commercial transaction. The applicant
need not be subjected to custodial interrogation. The complainant
has filed proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument
Act. There was no dishonest intention to cheat. It is submitted that in
similar circumstances, the Supreme Court has quashed the
proceedings on the ground that the dispute is of civil nature. He
relied upon the Judgment in the case of G.Sagar Suri and Another V/
s. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2000 SC 754 and Judgment delivered
This order is corrected as per Speaking to Minute order dated 3rd March, 2021
Ganesh Lokhande 3 of 4 4-aba-1158-20-w-ia-473-21.doc
by Orissa High Court in the case of S. Jayaswami and Another V/s.
State of Orissa and Another. He also relied upon the Judgment of
Supreme Court in the case of Kolla Veera Raghav Rao V/s. Gorantla
Venkateswara Rao and Another.
4. Learned APP submitted that the dishonest intention was
apparent right from inception. The applicant had no intention to
make payment.
5. Learned counsel for the intervener submitted that
merely because there was transaction of delivery of goods and some
payment is made, it cannot be said that it is civil transaction. The
applicant had introduced the complainant to deliver the goods. He
has no intention to make payment. Cheques were issued inspite of
knowing the fact that the account was closed. He shows the
dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. There
is no bar for initiating proceedings under Section 138 of N. I. Act and
FIR under Section 406 and 420 of IPC. The process is not yet issued
in the complaints under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
6. On perusal of the FIR, it is apparent that, undisputedly
goods were delivered to the applicant. Initially, some payment was
made. However, in respect to the delivery of substantial goods, ten
cheques were issued by the applicant dated 11 th November, 2019,
This order is corrected as per Speaking to Minute order dated 3rd March, 2021
Ganesh Lokhande 4 of 4 4-aba-1158-20-w-ia-473-21.doc
totally amounting to Rs.19,89,216/-. Learned counsel for the
complainants submitted that opportunity was given to the
complainant to resolve the dispute by making the payment. However,
there was no response. Although cheques were issued on 11 th
November, 2019. The bank account was closed before that cheques
were issued on account which was already closed, before issuance of
cheques which shows that applicant had no intention to make
payment. In the circumstances, no case for grant of anticipatory bail,
is made out.
ORDER
(i) Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1158 of 2020, is rejected;
(ii) Interim Application No. 473 of 021 stands disposed of;
(iii) It is clarified the observation in this order, are only for
considering this application and the Trial Court shall not be
influenced by the same during proceedings.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
This order is corrected as per Speaking to Minute order dated 3rd March, 2021
