Prateek Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 16416 MP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 16416 MP
Judgement Date : 31 May, 2024

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Prateek Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 May, 2024

Author: Anand Pathak

Bench: Anand Pathak

                                   1
 IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        AT GWALIOR
                            BEFORE
              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                        ON THE 31 st OF MAY, 2024
               MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22840 of 2024

BETWEEN:-
PRATEEK JAIN S/O SH PRADEEP JAIN, AGED ABOUT 33
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 437 SADAR BAZAR
DISTRICT JHANSI UP (UTTAR PRADESH)

                                                                .....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI VIJAY DATT SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICE
STATION THROUGH POLICE STATION KARERA
DISTRICT SHIVPURI MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH KUSHWAHA- DY.A.G. )

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

1. This is first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the

Cr.P.C filed by the applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.351/2024, registered at Police Station- Karera, District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for applicant that applicant who is a man aged 33 years is apprehending his arrest on the basis of registration of offence as referred above. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the case because dispute primarily pertains to civil transaction. Earlier applicant as owner of the land

agreed to sell his land to one Smt. Mamta W/o Rajendra Singh Yadav, Nawal Singh Yadav and to Sukhdevi W/o Amar Singh Yadav. Due to some dispute a civil suit was filed by one Rinku S/o Amar Singh Yadav and Dilip S/o Amar Singh Yadav against present applicant and one Ravindra S/o Amar Singh Yadav. In the said suit compromise was reached between the parties and an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC was signed by the parties by which applicant was ready to dispose of his suit property after receiving requisite payment. Since Mamta Yadav paid the amount to applicant, therefore, in pursuance to compromise, applicant executed sale deed in favour of Mamta Yadav to her part. Since Sukhdevi did not pay the amount, therefore, applicant

did not execute sale deed in favour of Sukhdevi. He is still ready to sell the property to Sukhdevi provided she pays agreed amount to the applicant. However, instead of paying the amount and complying the settlement decree, she moved a private complaint for alleged offence as referred above before JMFC Karera, District Shivpuri. On the directions of said court, offence has been registered by the police.

3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that it is at best a civil dispute and remedy of specific performance of contract or execution of compromise decree is available to the complainant but just to exert pressure civil dispute has been tried to be converted into criminal liability. Learned counsel specifically submits that applicant has no mens rea to grab the money. If amount is paid by the complainant as agreed upon then applicant is ready to execute sale deed in favour of Sukhdevi. No ingredient of offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 of IPC are made out. Even otherwise Section 420 of IPC is triable by Magistrate and maximum sentence awarded can be seven

years. Therefore, it is covered by the judgment of Apex Court in the cases of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 a n d Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. CBI, 2021 SCC Online SC 922.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the application. However, he specifically submits that applicant does not bear any criminal record.

5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Considering the above submissions and facts situation of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court intends to allow the application, therefore, it is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum o f Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority/Trial Court.

7. 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 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;

6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; 7 . The applicant shall mark her presence on every Sunday

before the police station concerned between 10:00 am to 2:00 pm, till filing of charge-sheet.