Neeraj S/O Girishchand Dixit vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This is first application under section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.104/2019 registered at Police Station Heera Nagar, Indore for the offences punishable under sections 406 & 408 IPC.

As per prosecution case applicant Neeraj Dixit, the Principal of Hari Public School, Indore had withdrawn an amount of Rs.16,13,000/- from the account of the school to his own personal account in HDFC Bank and thus committed breach of trust. This amount was withdrawn in two parts. The first part of Rs.7,50,000/- was withdrawn on 16.03.2018 and second part of Rs.8,63,000/- was withdrawn on 20.04.2018. The complaint against him was lodged by Jagdish Chowkse, the Director of the School. The case of the applicant, as per his counsel is that complainant and the applicant knew each other for the last 17 years and complainant had taken Rs.39 lacs from the applicant and had given him two cheques as part payment of the amount which were, however, dishonoured which compelled the applicant to file a complaint under section 138 of the NI Act and the complainant on coming to know that the cheques were dishonoured has been lodging false report and has been publishing false news items against the applicant and the present complaint is also an effort to discredit applicant in this case under section 138 NI Act. It is submitted that the interrogation of applicant is not required in the matter.

Learned counsel on behalf of the complainant has submitted that complainant being the Director, had left cheque book with the applicant containing signatures of the complainant and complainant had misused the same and has misappropriated the amount for his own use.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it was not possible for him to withdraw that amount as the amount was transferred by way of RTGS mechanism and as per the letter of the bank Manager for effecting any transfer of more than Rs.2 lacs, there has to be satisfaction of two requirements. The first is presence of signatures of the account holder on the cheque and secondly, the verification from account holder and it was not possible on the part of the applicant to withdraw the money without complainant coming to know about it. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that he has already stated that he had left cheque book containing signatures on the cheques with the applicant which the applicant had misused and the learned counsel for the complainant submits that applicant while filling form of RTGS should have given the mobile number of complainant but he had given the mobile number of himself. Thus, there was no possibility of complainant coming to know about withdrawal of amount.

Learned counsel for the applicant has admitted that the mobile number which is given in the RTGS form is the mobile number of applicant only and not of complainant. However, he submits that RTGS form also contains the signatures of complainant which implies that it was complainant alone who had given the mobile number of applicant.

To this learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant while signing the cheques had also signed RTGS form. This submission was subjected to objection saying that this is an improved statement on the part of the complainant who earlier stated that he had only signed the cheques.

This submission was considered.

Complainant, who was admittedly the Director of the School, was expected to have provided his own mobile number so that he comes to know about bank transactions through RTGS made by the applicant. By writing mobile number of the applicant in the RTGS form, it would be assumed that the complainant himself had foreclosed the means of obtaining information regarding withdrawal of funds which is very unnatural. Thus, there is substance in the submission of learned counsel for the complainant that complainant did not write mobile number of applicant in the RTGS form because doing so would have blocked information to the complainant which he would not do in any case. Learned counsel for the complainant has further pointed out towards the chronology of the events in order to show that complainant under section 138 NI Act was filed only when complainant lodged a complaint with the branch manager. He has pointed out that on 11.06.18 complainant Jagdish Chowkse had complained to branch Manager, Bank of Baroda Branch, Mangal Nagar, Shukliya that the Principal Neeraj Dixit has taken cheque book having number from 000251 to 000300. It was mentioned in the letter that any cheque produced with such number be not honoured by the bank. On the same date complaint has been lodged by Jagdish Chowkse with SHO, Heera Nagar. The applicant thereafter on 21.7.18 submitted the impugned cheque for encashment and lodged a complaint under section 138 NI Act on 11.09.2018. This clearly shows that it was after lodging of complaint by Jagdish Chowkse against the applicant that the applicant resorted to taking action under section 138 of the NI Act.

Learned counsel for the complainant further states that there was no loan transaction between applicant and complainant and it could not have been assumed that Rs.39 lacs were given on loan without executing any document. Learned counsel for the applicant admits that due to good relations between the complainant and applicant, loan document was not executed.

On consideration of the submissions made by both learned counsel, it appears that the story propounded on behalf of the applicant that the applicant had advanced loan of huge sum of Rs.39 lacs to the complainant without any written document of loan does not evoke confidence. Further, it has been made clear that complaint under section 138 NI Act was filed only after complainant sent a letter to the branch Manager of Bank of Baroda and lodged a written complaint with the police. The applicant has been accused of committing breach of trust of substantial amount. The complainant being the Principal of a School was custodian of the property of a school and even if there is truth in his story regarding earlier loan transaction with Jagdish Chowkse, he was not expected to redeem his loss by using school fund for his benefit.

In view of the above situation, anticipatory bail which can only be given in exceptional circumstances, cannot be afforded to the applicant. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.