Dismissed¶¶37

Kallam Ram Paswan v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC1 Oct 2024ABA/201/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

anticipatory bail refused; cheating; Section 420 IPC; Sections 406 420 34 IPC; civil dispute vs criminal intention to cheat since inception; contract does not bar criminal offence; grape sale; unpaid balance Rs.50,41,542; Rs.24,00,000 paid; Crime No.700/2023 Shrigonda Police Station Ahmednagar; custodial interrogation; recovery of yields of crime; interim relief; investigation papers; Bombay High Court Aurangabad; R. M. Joshi; ABA 199/2024, ABA 201/2024, ABA 202/2024

What did the court decide?

None; anticipatory bail refused — all three applications stand dismissed. ¶¶37

Kallam Ram Paswan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; anticipatory bail refused — all three applications stand dismissed.

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants, who apprehend arrest in Crime No.700/2023 (Shrigonda Police Station, Dist. Ahmednagar) for offences under Sections 420, 406, 34 IPC, are entitled to anticipatory bail, the applicants contending that the matter is a civil dispute. +1 more

¶¶27

Court's answer

Since prima facie material indicates the offence of cheating is made out, this Court finds substance in the learned APP's contention that custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary to ascertain the manner in which the crime was committed and for recovery of the yields of crime, and accordingly finds no basis to grant pre-arrest bail; all three applications stand dismissed.

¶¶37

Ratio / Principle

It is not the law that in every case where there is a contract between the parties no offence can be made out; where an element of criminality is involved in the transaction, there is no embargo on registering a crime in respect of it.

¶¶32

Key takeaways

To attract the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC there must be evidence indicating that the accused had the intention to cheat from the inception.ratio¶¶32
On the facts — grapes worth Rs.50,41,542/- supplied while only Rs.24,00,000/- was paid through bank transfer, and documents having been sent as if the entire amount had been paid — this Court accepts the informant's contention that there was an intention to cheat from the inception of the transaction; the prima facie material thus indicates the offence of cheating is made out.ratio¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay HC (Aurangabad Bench), R. M. Joshi, J., 1 Oct 2024 — Anticipatory Bail Applications Nos. 199, 201 and 202 of 2024 (Sanjay Kumar Shaha, Kallam Ram Paswan and Karan Sanjay Shaha) concerning apprehended arrest in Crime No.700/2023, Shrigonda Police Stn., Dist. Ahmednagar (Ss. 420, 406, 34 IPC), dismissed. Grapes supplied (15/02/2023–03/03/2023) worth Rs.50,41,542/- against payment of only Rs.24,00,000/-; documents despatched as if full payment made. Court held that a mere contract does not preclude registration of an offence where criminality is involved, and that prima facie material showed an intention to cheat from the inception (S. 420 IPC); claim of transactions with third parties unsupported by investigation papers; custodial interrogation deemed necessary, incl. for recovery of yields of crime.

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:23845

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 199 OF 2024

¶4

SANJAY KUMAR SHAHA VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶6

Mr. V. S. Khanke, Advocate for the applicant Mr. C. B. Badane, APP for the respondent/State Mr. S. R. Zambre, Advocate for the informant

¶7

AND

¶8

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 201 OF 2024

¶9

KALLAM RAM PASWAN VERSUS

¶10

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶11

Mr. V. S. Khanke, Advocate for the applicant Mr. C. B. Badane, APP for the respondent/State Mr. S. R. Zambre, Advocate for the informant

¶12

AND

¶13

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 202 OF 2024

¶14

KARAN SANJAY SHAHA VERSUS

¶15

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶16

Mr. V. S. Khanke, Advocate for the applicant Mr. C. B. Badane, APP for the respondent/State Mr. S. R. Zambre, Advocate for the informant

¶17

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 1^st OCTOBER, 2024

1 of 5

931.aba199.24.odt

PER COURT :-

Heard.

¶22

Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with Crime No.700/2023 registered with Shrigonda Police Station,. Dist. Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The informant is an agriculturist and trader. He claims that in the year 2023 he had sold grapes to the applicants in ABA Nos. 199/2024 and 202/2024 through Kallan Paswan. It is contended that during the period from 15/02/2023 to 03/03/2023 there was supply of grapes to them. The total amount payable to the informant was Rs.50,41,542/- whereas the out of the said amount only Rs.24,00,000/were paid. It is thus alleged by the informant that this the case wherein he is being cheated by the applicants.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that this is a civil transaction and as such no offence under Sections 406, 420 is not tenable. According to him that with an intention to pressurize applicants to pay money/ recovery money, criminal colour has been given to the transaction in question. He also contended that entire transaction is not with informant but with other persons too. It is his submission that

¶25

2 of 5

¶26

931.aba199.24.odt

¶27

pursuant to the grant of interim relief applicants have attended the concerned police station and cooperate during the investigation. He also made grievance that in fact the informant never appeared before the Investigating Officer is enable the applicants to show the accounts of the transaction. Thus, it is his contention that this being a civil dispute, it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶28

Learned APP and learned counsel for the informant opposed the said submissions by contending that from the first information report it is clear that the applicants had intention to cheat the informant since the inception of the transaction. To substantiate the said submissions it is pointed out that against transaction of more than Rs. 50 lakhs only Rs. 24 lakhs are paid and though entire money was not paid by applicants, it was claimed that informant is paid the same. This according to them indicates the malafide intention on the part of the applicants to cheat since beginning of transaction. Apart from this by relying upon the investigation papers it is submitted that there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the transactions were entered in to with several persons and not informant alone. To support the said submissions receipts issued towards the sale of the grapes were pointed out.

¶29

It is not the law that in all cases wherein there is contract between

¶30

3 of 5

¶31

931.aba199.24.odt

¶32

the parties, no offence can be made out. In case there is element of criminality involved in the transaction, there is no embargo to register a crime in respect of the same. In order to attract offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC there has to be evidence to indicate that since inception the accused had intention to cheat. Herein this case the goods worth of Rs.50,41,542/- were sold by the informant against a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- has been paid. Thus, almost half of the amount was still due and payable to the informant by the applicant. In spite of the said fact the applicants have sent the documents as if the entire amount is paid. This Court, therefore, finds substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the informant that there was an intention to cheat the informant since inception of the transaction. There is further evidence on record in the form of transaction amount of Rs.24,00,000/by the applicants to the informant which indicates that the transaction between the parties was for the sale of the grapes against which the payment was to be made by bank transfer. This is not the case of the applicants that other than bank transfer any amount was paid by the applicants to the informant. Thus, it can be safely said that the applicants received goods worth Rs.50 lakhs for less than half price.

¶33

It is not the case, where there are disputes about the receipt of goods or quality thereof, in order to a civil court requiring adjudication

¶34

4 of 5

¶35

931.aba199.24.odt

¶36

thereon. Similarly, though it is sought to be claimed by applicants that transactions were with others and not only with informant, but the investigation papers do not indicates so. Moreover applicants have not produced any material on record to support such submissions.

¶37

Once the Court comes to the prima facie conclusion that there is element of criminality involved in the application as there is prima facie material to indicate that the offence of cheating is made out, this Court finds substance in the contention of learned APP that custodial interrogation of applicants is necessary to ascertain the manner in which the crime is committed and also for recovery of yields of crime. Hence, there is reason or justification to grant pre-arrest bail. As such, applications stand dismissed.

¶38

ssp

¶39

5 of 5

¶40

931.aba199.24.odt

Kallam Ram Paswan v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallam Ram Paswan v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind @ Arvya Pandurang Shinde vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Imran Faruqh Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vaijinath Bansi Misal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Vijaypal Bikki Singh vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Akash Siddharth Ingle vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Kumar Shaha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another