Allowed

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

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2024ABAIL/809/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding a new charge under Section 409 IPC. The court held that the underlying commercial dispute, previously adjudicated as an abuse of process, warranted bail protection despite the applicant's non-appearance to a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for a different section.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted in the added Section 409 IPC; applicant to furnish personal bond and two solvent sureties with conditions regarding appearance and tampering.

Ravindranath Singh vs State of U.P. Thru… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30981

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 809 of 2024 Applicant :- Ravindranath Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Palak Jawa,Akshay Kumar Singh,Purnendu Chakravarty Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Digvijay Nath Dubey,Jaya Pandey,Lalta Prasad Misra

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant/ informant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, Akshay Kumar Singh and Ms. Aishwarya Saxena, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Kumar Singh, the learned State Counsel, Dr.Lalta Prasad Misra, Sri Digvijay Nath Dubey and Ms. Jaya Pandey, the learned counsel for the informant and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in the added Section 409 I.P.C in Case Crime No. 464 of 2023, registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow. The applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B I.P.C.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 01.08.2023 under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B I.P.C, stating that the applicant had allured the informant to take a contract of mining of miner 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

¶9

and took Rs. 2 Crores, which the informant transferred to the applicant's firm Prakash Infra Venture Pvt. Ltd. through R.T.G.S on 26.04.2018. The applicant 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 applicant's bank account on his demand. Subsequently, the informant came to know that the LOI given by the applicant was forged. When the informant put pressure of initiating legal proceedings, the applicant returned Rs. 35,48,662/- in three installments paid on various undisclosed dates. When the informant demanded return of the balance amount, the applicant 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.

¶10

This Court had granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in the originally imposed sections 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 had annexed copies of whats-app communication between the parties, from which it appeared that as on 01.06.2022, the applicant 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 beens held that:-

¶11

"13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil

¶12

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:

¶13

" 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

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

¶15

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 that the informant is abusing the process of criminal law to put undue pressure on the applicant for recovery of amount under a 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.

¶17

After grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant Section 406 I.P.C has been replaced by Section 409 I.P.C on the basis of same set of allegation.

¶18

The informant has filed a counter affidavit opposing the bail application and it has inter alia been stated in the counter affidavit that the applicant has violated condition no. 1 put in the anticipatory bail order dated 04.10.2023, which required the applicant to appear before the investigating officer, as and when required. It is stated in the counter affidavit that inspite of service of three notices under Section 91 Cr.P.C, the applicant did not appear before the investigating officer.

¶19

Replying to the aforesaid objection, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had been granted anticipatory bail under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B I.P.C. However, the notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C was issued by the investigating officer including Section 409 I.P.C in place of Section 406 I.P.C, which was not there in the F.I.R and regarding which the applicant had neither sought

¶20

nor was granted anticipatory bail. Therefore, the applicant apprehended his arrest upon appearance in response to the notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C and for this reason, he did not appear before the investigating officer and he is seeking anticipatory bail in the added section.

¶21

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.

¶22

From the aforesaid conduct of the informant, the prima faice satisfaction recorded by the Court while passing the order dated 04.10.2023 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2145 of 2023 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., 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.

¶23

The learned State Counsel has opposed the application on the basis of instructions provided to him and he does not propose to file a counter affidavit.

¶24

As the applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, Section 409 I.P.C has been added in place of 406 I.P.C on the basis of same set of allegations, the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in the added section also.

¶25

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed . In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Ravindranath Singh before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

¶26

(i). that the applicant shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶27

(ii) that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶28

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.

¶29

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶30

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶31

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶32

Order Date :- 22.4.2024 Preeti.

¶33

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ravindranath 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?

Ravindranath 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

Amresh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Rukmini Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Indradev Vs Shri Umesh Singh and 19 Others

Santoshi Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

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

Om Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others