Ramakant Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 104 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               A.B.A. No. 32 of 2022
                         ------

       Ramakant Singh                         ...              Petitioner
                                    Versus
      The State of Jharkhand              ...               Opposite Party
                                     ------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agarwal, Addl. P.P.

For the Informant : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate : Mr. J.S. Singh, Advocate

------

Order No.02 Dated- 12.01.2022

Heard the parties through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after resumption of the Court in physical mode. In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No.111 of 2021 registered under sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has committed criminal breach of trust by making the payment of Rs.92,15,000/- against the receipt of articles worth Rs.1,55,60,912/- and though the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs.63,45,922/- but the same was dishonoured. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the informant has not supplied the articles worth Rs.1,55,60,912/-. It is then submitted that undisputedly, there was a business relationship between the petitioner and the informant and substantial amount of money in respect of the articles has admittedly been paid by the petitioner and though the cheque which was given as security and not for payment to the informant by the petitioner and the contents of which has not been filled up in the handwriting of the petitioner was dishonoured, yet no case under Section 138 of N.I. Act was instituted within the period of limitation prescribed therefor in the statute. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar And Others vs. State of Bihar And Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663, paragraph no.11 of which reads as under:-

"11. Referring to the growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases, in paras 13 and 14 of Indian Oil Corpn. case [Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] , it was held as under : (SCC pp. 748-49) "13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] , this Court observed : (SCC p. 643, para 8) '8. ... It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.'

14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250 CrPC more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may."

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, this case has been instituted to settle the civil dispute between the parties and while receiving the materials from the informant firm, the petitioner always demanded mining challan and the same was not submitted before the office for receiving payment as the informant did not issue mining challan and other relevant documents relating to transportation resulting in double royalty being deducted from the payment released by the Government to the petitioner. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case and that there is no allegation of the petitioner having any dishonest intention at the time of alleged entrustment of the articles to the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Khunti, in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No.111 of 2021 with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-