Allowed

Anil Hardasmal Karma v. State of Maharasgtra Anr.

Bombay HC24 Aug 2009APPLN/3163/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench granted anticipatory bail to applicants facing arrest in C.R. No. I-85/09 for offences under IPC and NI Act regarding a property and cheque dispute. Bail was granted with specific conditions including daily appearance and recognizance.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with Rs. 25,000 personal bond and sureties; daily attendance at police station for one week.

Anil Hardasmal Karma Vs State of Maharasgtra Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3163 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3170 OF 2009

¶4

Anil Hardasmal Kamra Santosh Hardeasmal Kamra Soniya B. Kamra Anil Gurumukhdas Garela ........ Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra ........Respondent.

¶5

Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar adv. for the Applicant Mr. J.P. Yagnik APP. for the Respondent/State. Mr. Satish Mane Shinde i/b. Mrs. Vrishali Raje and Snehal Khairnar for respondent no.2.

¶6

CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 24th August, 2009.

¶7

P. C.:

¶8

Criminal Application No.3163/09 has been filed by Anil Kamra who happens to be the real brother of wife of the complainant whereas applicant no.1 in Criminal Application no. 3170/09 is also brother of the wife of the complainant. The applicant no.2 in the said application is wife of deceased brother of the complainant’s wife and the applicant no.3 Anil Garela is the person who claims to have entered into an agreement with the complainant for purchase of half of the property as indicated hereinafter.

¶9

¶10

The relevant facts which give rise to the apprehension of the present applicants that they would be arrested in C.R. No. I-85/09 registered with Hill live police station, Ulhas Nagar for offence punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC are narrated hereinafter. Police have registered the offence after the JMFC directed an investigation to be carried out pursuant to an order passed under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

¶11

Perusal of the complaint reveals that the complainant had full faith in the applicant no.1 Anil Kamra and used to sign the documents as asked by him. The complainant was owner of a property and he had decided to sell the said property and purchase another property and as such sought co-operation from the present applicant no.1. The property came to be sold for a consideration of Rs. 17 lacs under registered conveyance dated 15-2-2008. According to the recitals of said registered conveyance the amount of consideration was received by the complainant and the same is acknowledged. Another property as desired by the complainant was purchased in the joint name of the complainant and his wife for a sum of Rs. 20 lacs. This document where under the property was purchased bearing house No. C-7/42 was so purchased as well under a registered deed of conveyance. According to the present applicants they had advanced a sum of Rs. 9 lacs to the complainant on 5-9-2008 by different cheques. The amount covered by the cheques has been deposited in the account of the complainant. With a view to secure the repayment of the amount

¶12

¶13

of Rs. 9 lacs the complainant had issued post dated cheques dated 24-4-2009 in favour of the applicants. When the cheques came to be deposited the same could not be realized as the complainant had issued instructions to the bank to stop the payments. There is yet one more transaction in regard to the half portion of the house purchased by the complainant under a deed of conveyance dated 30-9-2008. The half portion is stated to have agreed to be purchased by the applicant no.3 in the Criminal Application no. 3170/09 and it is claimed that he has paid a sum of Rs. 7.95 lacs. It is relevant to note that the post dated cheques were dated 24-4-2009 and few days before that date the complainant issued notice to his wife viz. the sister of the present applicant no.1, that she is trying to grab half portion of the property of the complainant. The cheques came to be dishonored on 24-4-2009 and hence taking recourse of the provisions of section 138 of N.I.Act the applicants issued notice on 6-5-2009. Curiously enough on 10-5-2009 the complainant lodged FIR with the police that he had lost the cheques and the lost cheques are misused by the present applicant. In the above referred fact situation, complaint has been filed before JMFC wherein investigation has been ordered. The complaint is primarily founded on an assertion that the applicant no.1 Anil Kamra has received a sum of Rs. 25 lacs from one Ramesh Hemnani towards consideration of the sale of first property and has wrongly appropriated it to himself. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer has recorded statement of Ramesh Hemnani wherein he has stated

¶14

¶15

that though Anil Kamra and himself had negotiations in regard to the sale of the first property, nothing has been paid to the applicant no.1 as the deal could not materialise. In that view of the matter, prima facie it is difficult to conclude that the present applicants have indulged in any crime. It can also be seen that the parties are near relations and the cause of dispute appears to be the property and/or money arising out of the property. Proceedings under section 138 of N.I.Act are also instituted. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, in my view this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The learned APP has submitted that certain documents that are in possession of the accused no.1 are to be recovered from him. I have also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the affidavit filed by the complainant on record. In the result I pass the following order.

¶16

In the vent of arrest of the applicants in C.R.No. I-85/09 registered with Hill live police station, Ulhas Nagar for offence punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC, the applicants and/or any of them shall be released on bail on executing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/each with one or two sureties in the like amount. The applicant in Criminal Application no.3163/09/original accused no.1 and applicant no.3 in application no.3170/09 shall attend the Hill Live police station daily for a period of one week between 11 O’clock and 1.00 p.m. and co-operate the investigating officer from, tomorrow onwards.

¶17

¶18

The applicant nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Application no. 3170/09 shall attend the police station on Saturday between 11 O’clock and 1.00 p.m. The applicants shall abide by the conditions stipulated under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Application stands disposed of.

Anil Hardasmal Karma v. State of Maharasgtra Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Hardasmal Karma v. State of Maharasgtra Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Sukhdev Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jalindher Ghamaji Gavare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sabah Adnan Sami Khan Vs Adnan Sami Khan and Anr.

Sidram Pralhad Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sukhdev Bhaginath Nhyarkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Daphani Clair Poppy Vs the State of Maharashtra