Smt. Rajavi Agarwal vs State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 7726 MP

                                                              1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                                  ON THE 11 th OF MAY, 2023
                                         MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19474 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    SMT. RAJAVI AGARWAL W/O AKASH AGARWAL,
                                 AGED     ABOUT    47   YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 DIRECTOR, R/O: 61 A ANITA APARTMENT 6TH
                                 FLOOR, MOUNT PLEASANT ROAD, MALAVAR
                                 HILLS, MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)

                           2.    TEJAS BALWANT GOHIL S/O ANKUR DHAMIJA,
                                 AGED     ABOUT    34   YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 DIRECTOR, R/O: A-302, SHRI MOREDHAR
                                 SOCIETY, GEETA NAGAR, FATAK ROAD, THANE,
                                 MAHARASHTRA (MAHARASHTRA)

                                                                                           .....APPLICANTS
                           (BY SHRI MANU MAHESHWARI - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           STATE OF M.P. STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH
                           POLICE STATION INDUSTRIAL AREA, DIST. DEWAS
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENT
                           (SHRI VINAY SARAF - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI RIZWAN KHAN -
                           ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR;
                           SHRI HEMANT SHARMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE;
                           SHRI PRASANNA PRASAD - ADVOCATE FOR THE OBJECTOR)

                                 This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                           following:
                                                               ORDER

Applicants have filed this first anticipatory bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail relating to Crime No.71/2023 registered at P.S. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 12-05-2023 11:10:48

Industrial Area, District Dewas (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 406 and 409 of IPC.

As per the prosecution story, applicants are the Directors of Idea International Private Limited, whereby they are accountable for the acts of the said Company. From 02.11.2022 to 15.12.2022, the complainant Vippy Industries Limited, Dewas purchased Crude Soya Lecithin from the Idea International Private Limited and the aforesaid transactions used to take place with the help of brokers. On 30.11.2022, a transaction SK-068 entered into between the complainant and the applicant Company for 28.30 metric tons of Lecithin and in order to collect the aforesaid goods, the applicants sent a tanker.

The Lecithin was filled into the aforesaid tanker and applicants allegedly produced toll receipt to the complainant, after generating the tax invoice. On 15.12.2022, complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,35,04,937/- via online mode. Despite the complete payment of Lecithin accused persons/applicants malafidely did not release the tanker to the complainant, despite his repeated telephonic request. After that, complainant gave a written application at P.S. Industrial Area, District Dewas that accused persons committed cheating with the complainant and amount paid by the complainant has been misappropriated by the accused persons, therefore, complainant requested the Court to direct the Police Authorities to register an FIR against the accused persons. Thereafter, offence has been registered against the accused persons/applicants.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this matter. No offence under Sections 406 and 409 of IPC is made out in the instant case. Matter is a simple civil dispute, which has been given colour of a criminal case. Crime is not registered against the Company, therefore, applicants being the Directors of the said Company Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 12-05-2023 11:10:48

cannot be made accused. Mandatory provision of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. is not duly complied with. Both the applicants are the permanent resident of Maharashtra and there is no apprehension to their flee away from the Court of justice and tampering with the evidence. There were multiple reminders and notices sent to the complainant for the aforesaid dispute, which are falsely been denied by the prosecutrix agencies. Hence, he prays that both the applicants be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Muksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in (2008) 5 SCC 668, Hotline Teletubes and Components Limited and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 261 and Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Another reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706 as well as the order passed by this Court in the case of Udeyendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. passed in MCRC No.1659 of 2023 on 01.02.2023.

Per-contra, learned counsel for respondent/State opposes the bail application and prays for its rejection by submitting that applicants have cheated and committed breach of trust with the complainant. Hence, they are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for objector also opposes the bail application and prays

for its rejection by submitting that initially offence has been registered under Section 406 of IPC and later on Section 409 of IPC has also been added. Therefore, they are not entitled for bail.

Perused the case diary as well as the impugned order passed by the court below.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 12-05-2023 11:10:48

Counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble the Apex in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, but in the present case offence under Section 409 of IPC has been registered against the present applicants, which is punishable with imprisonment of life or imprisonment of either description, which may be extent to 10 years, therefore, principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the present case. Prima facie it is established that applicants after entering in the transaction and receiving an amount of Rs.1,35,04,937/- neither supplied goods to the complainant nor returned the said amount to the complainant, despite several requests and receiving the notices, therefore, it is not merely a civil dispute.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by both the parties, nature and gravity of allegation and also taking note of the fact that investigation is at the initial stage and on the basis of prima facie evidence available on record, at this stage, present applicants do not deserve for grant of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, first anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has no force and is hereby dismissed.

With the aforesaid, the application stands disposed off. Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Anushree

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 12-05-2023 11:10:48