Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Aruna vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12092
1 MCRC-16095-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16095 of 2025
SMT. ARUNA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Mahesh Agrawal - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Amit Raval - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri V.K.Jain - Senior Advocate with Shri Mayank Patel - Advocate
for the complainant/Objector.
ORDER
This first application has been filed by the applicant under
Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of
anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 85/2025 registered at
Police Station - Sanyogitaganj, District- Indore, (M.P.) for offence
punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.
As per the case of prosecution, Hardeep Singh submitted a written
complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Sanyogitaganj alleging
forgery of documents by Aruna Tiwari(applicant). The complaint was
enquired. It was revealed that Aruna Tiwari applied for Shop
Establishment license regarding Car World Shop situated at 26, Indira
Complex, Hardeep Tower, Navlakha Indore. An affidavit executed by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12092
2 MCRC-16095-2025
Nandkishore Tiwari was enclosed with the application, which was found
to have been forged. The Notary, Deepak Jaiswal had done notarization
on the affidavit. It was further revealed that Nandkishore had died in the
year 2018, whereas, the affidavit was sworn on 12.04.2024. On the basis
of this affidavit and other documents, license of shop and establishment
was issued in favour of Aruna Tiwari. On the basis of this inquiry, P.S.
Sanyogitaganj, Indore(Urban) registered FIR for offence punishable u/S
420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC against applicant - Aruna Tiwari. The
statements of witnesses have been recorded. Relevant papers have been
seized. Investigation is underway. Applicant is apprehending arrest in
this matter.
Learned counsel for the applicant in addition to the grounds
mentioned in the application, submits that the applicant is owner of the
shop alongwith other properties. Hardeep Singh is claiming title over
these shops. There is a property dispute pending between Hardeep Singh
and applicant. Hardeep Singh is constantly making complaints against
the applicant to pressurize her. Applicant personally did not apply for the
shop and establishment license. Rather, the Agent - Dilip Agrawal was
contacted to get license on behalf of the applicant. Applicant had given
her Aadhar Card only to the Agent. Rest of the documents were prepared
by the Agent. Applicant is not aware about the forgery of any document.
She did not participate in the process for grant of shop establishment
license. No offence, as alleged, is committed by the applicant. Applicant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12092
3 MCRC-16095-2025
is aged 46 years. She had lost her husband and father-in-law and looking
after their properties. She is ready to co-operate in the
investigation. Therefore, applicant may be extended the benefit of
anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned Counsel for the State ably assisted by counsel
for objector opposes the application on the ground of gravity of alleged
offence. Learned counsel referring to the statements recorded during
investigation, especially of the Agent - Dilip Agrawal and the Manager
of applicant, Ravindra Tharol submits that the applicant herself has
provided all the documents to the Agent for grant of shop and
establishment license in her favour. She is the beneficiary of the license.
She never approached the authorities for cancellation of license despite
the knowledge of forgery of the affidavit. The complicity of applicant is
prima-facie made out. Learned counsel further referring to the previous
complaint submits that applicant had forged a lease deed. She was
extended benefit of anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court vide order
dated 16.01.2024. The matter is pending for trial. Despite grant of
anticipatory bail on similar allegations, she again indulged in forgery and
cheating. Therefore, she may not be extended benefit of anticipatory
bail.
Heard the arguments, perused the grounds for grant of anticipatory
bail stated in the application and the case diary.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:12092
4 MCRC-16095-2025
Allegedly, the applicant forged and utilized affidavit executed in
name of her father-in-law - Nandkishore Tiwari, who had expired in the
year 2018 whereas the affidavit appears to have been sworn on
12.04.2024. The concerned Notary - Deepak Jaiswal had denied
execution and notarization of such affidavit. Applicant was beneficiary
of usage of the forged affidavit. The complicity of applicant in the
alleged offence is prima facie made out from the material on record. The
custodial interrogation of the applicant would be required to unearth the
execution and forgery of the affidavit. The applicant has not been available
for the purpose of investigation. Considering previous prosecution and the
material on record and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State
of M.P. Vs. Pradeep Sharma reported in (2014) 2 SCC 171, this court is of
the considered opinion that the rare relief of anticipatory bail cannot be
extended to the applicant.
Consequently, this anticipatory bail application(M.Cr.C. No.
16095/2025) stands dismissed.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
sh
