Allowed

Bina Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2024/894/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the applicant's anticipatory bail application, converting an interim order to absolute. The court held that the FIR was an abuse of process to pressure recovery of commercial dues, relying on prior bail grants and Supreme Court precedents on civil-to-criminal conversion.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application is allowed; the order dated 29.04.2024 is made absolute under Sections 438 Cr.P.C. and various Sections of the IPC.

Bina Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:46023

¶2

Court No. - 32

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 894 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Bina Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Palak Jawa,Akshay Kumar Singh,Purnendu Chakravarty Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Digvijay Nath Dubey,Himanshi,Jaya Pandey

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Anuj Tandon holding brief of Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, the learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Jaya Pandey, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Puneet Kumar Yadav, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶8

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 464 of 2023, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B I.P.C. , registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow East (commisionerate Lucknow).

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 01.08.2023 not including the applicant, stating that the husband of the applicant had allured the informant to take a contract of mining of minor mineral/ Maurang in collaboration with him. He took Rs.35 lakhs from the informant on 05.03.2018 for submitting a tender. Thereafter, the applicant told that the tender had been accepted and took Rs. 2 Crores, which the

¶10

informant transferred to the applicant's firm Prakash Infra Venture Pvt. Ltd. through R.T.G.S on 26.04.2018. The applicant's husband had shown a LOI issued by the District Magistrate, Jalaun and had given its copy to the informant wherein the names of the applicant and the informant were mentioned. On 07.05.2018, the informant had paid Rs. 50 Lakhs more by transferring the amount to the company's bank account on demand. Subsequently, the informant came to know that the LOI given by the Ravindranath Singh (coaccused) was forged. When the informant put pressure of initiating legal proceedings, the Ravindranath Singh returned Rs. 35,48,662/- in three installments paid on various undisclosed dates. When the informant demanded return of the balance amount, he prepared a contract on 25.07.2019 whereby the informant was made a partner of 12.50 % shares. The informant had signed the contract under a hope of getting his money but the applicant did not pay him the money.

¶11

This Court had granted anticipatory bail to the applicant's husband Ravindranath Singh in the originally imposed sections vide order dated 04.10.2023 after taking into consideration the fact that monitory transaction had taken place between the parties under a commercial contract and admittedly some amount had been repaid by the applicant to the informant. The applicant has annexed copies of whats-app communication between the parties, from which it appeared that as on 01.06.2022, the applicant's husband owned Rs. 15 lakhs only towards the informant. This court had also taken into consideration, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 wherein it has been held that:-

¶12

"13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency

¶13

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, this Court observed:

¶14

"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."

¶15

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."

¶16

This Court had recorded a prima face satisfaction while granting anticipatory bail to co-accused Ravindranath Singh that the informant is abusing the process of criminal law to put undue pressure on the applicant for recovery of amount under a

¶17

commercial contract, although there is an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties. By avoiding initiation of arbitration proceedings, the informant has evaded payment of money that would have been payable to the arbitrator as arbitration fee.

¶18

After grant of anticipatory bail to the co-accused, Section 406 I.P.C has been altered by Section 409 I.P.C on the basis of same set of allegation and this Court vide order dated 22.04.2024 has granted anticipatory bail in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 809 of 2024.

¶19

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the coaccused had been granted anticipatory bail under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B I.P.C and in section 409 I.P.C also.

¶20

In response to a specific query put by the Court as to whether the informant has initiated any proceedings for recovery of the amount besides lodging the F.I.R, the learned counsel for the informant gave a categorical reply that the informant has not initiated any proceedings for recovery of the amount.

¶21

From the aforesaid conduct of the informant, the prima faice satisfaction recorded by the Court while passing the orders dated 04.10.2023 and 22.04.2024 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Applications No. 2145 of 2023 and 809 of 2024, respectively, granting anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 464 of 2023, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B I.P.C. and in the Section 409 I.P.C, that the F.I.R has been lodged as an abuse of the process of criminal law for putting undue pressure on the applicant for recovery of the amount under a commercial contract, stands fortified.

¶22

The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 29.04.2024 while granting opportunity to the opposite parties to file their counter affidavits. The State has filed counter affidavit but no such fact has come to light in the counter affidavit as would pursued to this court to take a view different from the view taken while passing the order dated 29.04.2024. The informant has not filed any counter affidavit.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid fact, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed , in terms of the earlier order dated 29.4.2024 and the order dated 29.04.2024 is made absolute.

¶24

Order Date :- 5.7.2024 Manoj

¶25

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bina Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bina Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rangesh Kumar vs State of Up and 2 Others

Ajay Kumar vs State of Up and 4 Others

Sangam Dwivedi and 4 Others vs State of Up and Another

Geeta Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Anil Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rajeev vs State of Up and 4 Others