In this bail application, the court granted bail to the petitioner, a former director, who was accused of cheating and cheating by dishonouring cheques. The court noted allegations of concealing identity and non-payment of building material bills.
Petitioner granted bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
| + BAIL APPLN |
. 591/2015 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMARTYA D | UTTA GUPTA Through |
:Ms. Geeta Luthra, Mr. P.S. Singhal, and Mr. Ankit Aga |
..... Petitione Sr. Advocate Mr. Sanjay rwal, Advs. |
r with Abbot |
| versus | ||||
| STATE | ..... Responde | nt | ||
| Through | :Mr. Yogesh Ver with SI Virender Bagh |
ma, APP for Kumar, P.S. |
State Rani |
|
| Mr. Anil Garg, |
Adv. for |
the | ||
| CORAM: HON'BLE M % |
R. JUSTICE A. O R D E R 06.05.2015 |
complainant with person. K. PATHAK |
complainan | t in |
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who is assisted by the counsel
for complainant, submits that petitioner was Director of M/s. Unit Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. However, he concealed this fact and represented himself as an employee of the said company. He introduced the complainant with other Directors and induced him to supply the building material worth 1,93,74,840/-, on different dates. Till December, 2011, only 40,00,000/- was paid, leaving behind a balance of `1,53,74,840/-. In the
month of January, 2012, another sum of 40,00,000/- was paid to the complainant. Complainant was required to supply further material at which he insisted that balance payment be cleared first. Accordingly, company issued six cheques, totalling to 1,13,74,841/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Noida Branch. However, same were returned ‘dishonoured’ on presentation. In nutshell it is alleged that balance amount has not been paid. Instead company has gone in liquidation. It is alleged that petitioner and other Directors of the company have cheated the complainant.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that it is purely a commercial dispute, which has been given a colour of a criminal case. Building material was supplied by the complainant in the normal course of business, inasmuch as company had paid about 80,00,000/- to the complainant. She has further contended that another sum of 25,00,000/was paid to the complainant, which has not been disclosed by the complainant in the FIR. She has further contended that complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 but the same was, subsequently, returned to the complainant to be presented in the court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same, in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Another, 2014 (9) SCC 129. Only thereafter present FIR has been lodged.
Keeping in mind the totality of circumstances, it is ordered that in case of arrest, petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer/Station House Officer, Police Station Rani Bagh. However, petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when he is called upon to do so.
Application is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
MAY 06, 2015 rb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant bail to the petitioner who is alleged to have committed cheating by dishonouring cheques issued for building materials.
Whether the offence is of a purely commercial dispute or a criminal in nature.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Amartya Dutta Gupta
State
A.K. Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
