Chandreshwar Prasad vs Kumari

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint

Case No. 751 of 2015 for the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal

Code.

It appears that under order dated 07.02.2017, with the consent of the

parties the matter was referred to the Secretary, JHALSA for mediation but the

mediation has failed and the matter was to be heard on merit and accordingly,

the same is hereby heard on merit.

The prosecution case, in short, is that the complainant filed the

complaint which was sent to the police station under section 156(3) Cr.P.C

upon which F.I.R was lodged giving rise to Sector -IV P.S. Case No. 187 of 2014

under sections 406/420/120B I.P.C against the petitioner and his firm but after

investigation, police has submitted final form showing the case as civil dispute,

thereafter on the protest, this complaint was lodged alleging therein that the

firm of the complainant namely, M/s Metal Zone is engaged in the business of

consultancy in various fields and one another firm namely M/s Akarshan Infra

Developers (P) Ltd. through its Director namely Salil Narayan,i.e the petitioner

approached the said firm of complainant regarding generation of business in

Housing sector in Bokaro area with Bokaro Steel Officers Housing Co-operative

Society Ltd and thereafter, A.K. Singh the Chairman of Bokaro Steel Officers

Housing Co-operative Ltd has been contacted who has also shown his interest

upon the proposal of the complainant and then due to efforts of the

complainant, a meeting was fixed between the petitioner and A.K. Singh for the

above purpose. It is alleged that it was raged by the petitioner that if the work

order wold be granted for the said project under such condition, then he would

pay an amount of Rs. 70.00 lakhs as an advance towards consultancy and

business development charges and further, it was also agreed at his own that he

would further make payment of 3% of the total work order value paid to him for

the said project and in this regard, both the complainant and accused had

entered into an agreement on 12.08.2013. It is further alleged that the

petitioner refused to pay any amount in the light of agreement between both

the sides on 12.08.2013, although several reminders were made for the same.

On the basis of these allegations, the instant complaint case has been lodged.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has

been falsely implicated in this case and it wrong to suggest that the petitioner

has entered into agreement. Further, it has been submitted that before

institution of this case, the complainant had filed a complaint on 01.08.2014,

which was sent to the police station under section 156(3) Cr.P.C upon which

F.I.R. being Sector-IV P.S. Case No. 187 of 2014 under section 406, 420, 120B

I.P.C was lodged against the petitioner and his firm but after investigation,

police submitted final form showing the case as civil dispute, thereafter on the

protest, this complaint was lodged. Further, it has been submitted that the

contract between Bokaro Steel Officers Housing Developers Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi

was executed only on L-1 Basis which makes it very clear that the said contract

was given to the Akarshan Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi only because the

company was the lowest bidder. Further, it has been submitted there is no

question of favoritism from the complainant''s company in case were the contract

that is executed abides all the legal procedure. The demand of money on the

basis of this agreement is just mere way of blackmailing the petitioner and his

company. Further, it has been submitted that that as per the norms of the

petitioner''s company any agreement on behalf of the company is not valid till a

resolution is passed by the company, thereby authorizing is a director to sign the

agreement and in the present case there was no such resolution passed by the

company. The complainant was pretty well aware about the complete fact. It

has also been submitted that the case appears to be arising out of breach of

contract which is a civil dispute but the instant case has been lodged only to

harass the petitioner.

Learned A.P.P as well as learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2 vehemently

opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the O.P. NO.2 filed counter-affidavit stating therein

that the petitioner intended to cheat the respondent since inception as he

himself is showing lacunae in the agreement executed between the petitioner

and the informant dated 12.08.2013 in which petitioner has made signature

over each and every page and thus averment made in the petition that the

informant instituted the complaint petition in order to blackmail the petitioner

is totally false rather it appears that in order to wriggle out from the instant

criminal case, the petitioner is making such false allegation against the O.P. No.

It is further submitted that the petitioner has not only cheated the

informant/respondent no. 2 but due to his nefarious and fraudulent activities

instantly one F.I.R has also been instituted against him vide Karnal City P.S. Case

No. 229 of 2017 and thus it appears that the petitioner is a habitual offender,

copy of the Web of the Karnal P.S. Case No. 229 of 2017 has been annexed as

annexure-2 to this counter-affidavit. Further, it has been submitted that through

the matter was petitioner was appearing before the Mediation Cell, JHALSA but

his bail was cancelled by the Hon''ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Cr. M.M.

No. 37739 of 2015 and further his Special Leave Petition vide SLP (Criminal)

No. 419 of 2016 has also been dismissed by the Hon''ble Apex Court vide order

dated 30.06.2016, web copy of the order dated 30.06.2016 in S.L.P (Crl) No.

419 of 2016 of the Hon''ble Supreme Court has been annexed as annexure-3 to

this counter-affidavit and under the aforesaid circumstances, the motive

intention, conduct of the petitioner can be estimated as Section 8 of the Indian

Evidence Act coupled with Section 53 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Learned A.P.P produced the case diary. From perusal of para 5 of the case

diary, it appears that I.O has recored the re-statment of the informant, in para 06

I.O has recored the evidence of witness- Bidyawati Devi, in para 7 of the C.D.

I.O has recorded the evidence of witness-Sanjay Kumar, in para 08-statment of

witness-Partho Sathi Sen, in para 09-I.O has recorded the statement of witnness-

Madhu Kumar Kanth, in para-10 of the case diary, I.O has recorded the

statement of witness Abhishek Bhardwaj who have supported the case of

prosecution. Vide para 40 of the case diary, there is supervision report of the

case in which the case was found to be true.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through

the materials available on record, it appears that though the case is of civil

dispute between the parties but in view of the conduct of the petitioner and also

considering the fact that the petitioner is also accused in Karnal City P.S. Case

No. 229 of 2017 and his bail was cancelled by the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana

High Court, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.