1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1586 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1586 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1586 OF 2009 Tarvinder Singh, .. Applicant Vs 1. State of Maharashtra 2. Local Crime Branch, Railway Police, Pune .. Respondents. Mr.A.P.Mundargi,Sr.Advocate, with Shyam Dewani i/b Amol P.Mhatre, for the applicant. Mr S.R.Borulkar, Public Prosecutor, for the respondent-State. Mr M.S.Mohite, for the original complainant. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 27.04.2009. DATED : 27.04.2009. DATED : 27.04.2009. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicant, Mr Borulkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and Mr Mohite, learned counsel for the original complainant. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.I-146 of 2008 of Local Crime Branch, Railway Police, Pune, arising out of the directions issued under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C in Regular Cri.Case No.88 of 2008. The criminal case has been filed against the applicant and three others, for having 2 2 2 allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 384,406,465, 467,468,471 and 506 read with section 34 of IPC. 3. I have heard this matter at considerable length and with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the entire material placed before the Court. I have seen the private complaint, bearing Regular Criminal Case No.58/08, filed by the complainant-Sachin Purohit, against one Manilal Kataria. In short, it is alleged in the said complaint that Manilal Kataria, on 19.7.2008 at 8 am at Pune Railway Station, threatened the complainant that if he does not transfer five shops in the name of Kataria within fifteen days, he would kill him. Admittedly there is no whisper about the applicant in the criminal case filed by the complainant. Since we are not concerned with the allegations made by the complainant against Kataria, it is not necessary to state, in detail, the background against which the allegations are made against Kataria. 4. In pursuance of the order issued under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the police started investigation and during the investigation they came across certain 3 3 3 facts/material, which, according to the prosecution, disclose an offence against the present applicant also. 5. The applicant and complainant, both, are permanent residents of Nagpur. There are several litigations pending between the two. It would be advantageous to give the list of litigations/proceedings, both civil and criminal, filed by the applicant against the complainant and filed by the complainant against the applicant, which reads as follows: LIST OF PROCEEDINGS FILED BY ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT AND LIST OF PROCEEDINGS FILED BY ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT AND LIST OF PROCEEDINGS FILED BY ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT AND HIS WIFE AGAINST PRESENT APPLICANT IN NAGPUR. HIS WIFE AGAINST PRESENT APPLICANT IN NAGPUR. HIS WIFE AGAINST PRESENT APPLICANT IN NAGPUR. 1. 27/11/2004: 1. 27/11/2004: 1. 27/11/2004: None-cognizable complaint bearing No.1060/2004 under section 427 of IPC was registered at Ambazari Police Station, Nagpur against present applicant for causing damage to the sign board of the shop belonging to original complainant’s wife. 2. 25/01/2005: 25/01/2005: 25/01/2005: F.I.R.No.3018/2005 under sections 354,294,506-B,323 and 34 of IPC was registered at Ambazari Police Station, Nagpur-against present applicant and his nephew for outraging the modesty of original complainant’s wife. In the said FIR chargesheet was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Nagpur bearing Criminal Case No.251/2005 and the said case is pending till date. 4 4 4 LIST OF PROCEEDINGS FILED BY PRESENT APPLICANT AGAINST LIST OF PROCEEDINGS FILED BY PRESENT APPLICANT AGAINST LIST OF PROCEEDINGS FILED BY PRESENT APPLICANT AGAINST ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT AND HIS WIFE AND HIS OLD PARENTS ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT AND HIS WIFE AND HIS OLD PARENTS ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT AND HIS WIFE AND HIS OLD PARENTS 1. 25/1/2005: 1. 25/1/2005: 1. 25/1/2005: After original complainant’s wife lodged the FIR No.3018 against present applicant and his nephew u/s 354,323,294,506B and 34 present applicant lodged FIR no.3019 of Ambazari Police Station, Nagpur against original complaiannt’s wife and her brother under sections 294,323,506(B) and 34 under C.R.No.3019/2005. In the said FIR chargesheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial magistrate Nagpur bearing Criminal Case No.250/2005 and the said case is pending till date. 2. As original complainant’s wife filed Revision Application in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur bearing Criminal Revision Application No.784/2007 in which lower Court proceedings was stayed and hence the said case is pending till date in the court. 3. M.Diary No.3/2005 M.Diary No.3/2005 M.Diary No.3/2005 was registered at Ambazari Police Station, Nagpur pursuant to the private complaint lodged by the present applicant in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Nagpur bearing Regular Criminal Case No.350/2005 under sections 420, 406 and 34 of IPC. under the order of the said Court under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. against original complainant, his wife and his older mother. 4. Special Civil Suit bearing no. 928 of Special Civil Suit bearing no. 928 of Special Civil Suit bearing no. 928 of 2005 2005 2005 was filed by present applicant in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur for declaration, possession and rendition of accounts against original complainant, his wife and his old parents. The said special civil suit is still pending for hearing and no evidence is yet recorded till date. 5. Arbitration Suit bearing no.994/2008 Arbitration Suit bearing no.994/2008 Arbitration Suit bearing no.994/2008 was filed by the present applicant in the court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur against original complainant, his wife and his old parents in which no notices were served on the original complainant, his wife and his old 5 5 5 parents till date." The aforementioned proceedings are pending between the parties since 2004 and they show that the parties are litigating against each other not only in civil courts but even in criminal courts. 6. The basic allegation against the present applicant is that the applicant is using his resources and connections with Kataria to get false cases filed/registered through other people by forging the blank signed documents available originally with Kataria and subsequently secured by the applicant. The documents referred to are in the nature of blank letter-heads signed by the complainant, blank cheques, Hundis etc. 7. It is alleged that in 2000, Kataria had given loan of Rs.12,87,500/- to the complainant. In turn the complainant had issued certain documents, such as, cheques, blank cheques, hundies, blank letter-head duly signed by him etc. by way of security. The complainant was insisting for repayment of the loan and since the complainant was not in a position to repay, there was some settlement between the two in 2005. They signed an agreement by which three shops, 6 6 6 out of the eight shops in a particular complex, were transferred in the name of Kataria and his relative Nitin Bhalkar. As per the agreement, Kataria returned the document in respect of the amount of Rs.4,41,000/- only and could not and did not return the documents executed by way of security by the complainant in respect of the amount of Rs.7,46,500/-. The allegation against the applicant is that those documents, executed by the complainant, were given by Kataria to the applicant and he started misusing them against the complainant and his wife in order to harass them. 8. Mr Borulkar, learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that there was a raid conducted by the cooperative department under the provisions of Money Lenders Act, in which the two documents, duly signed by the complainant, were seized from possession of the applicant. This, according to Mr Borulkar, supports the case of the prosecution that the applicant has been using the documents, executed by the complainant while taking loan from Kataria, to harass the complainant. He also tendered those two documents for my perusal across the Bar. From perusal of those two documents,I find it difficult,even at this stage, to 7 7 7 draw an inference that they are from the documents, which were executed by the complainant in favour of Kataria. Looking the litigations between the parties, it is quite possible, as submitted by Mr Mundargi, learned counsel for the applicant, that the applicant was having those documents with him. Then, my attention was drawn to the statement of one Billumal Jaysingh, recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. This witness has stated that the applicant had told him that he possesses several documents signed by the complainant, in connection with his transactions with Kataria, and he proposes to use them against the complainant and he also sought Billumal Jaising’s help in that regard. He also made reference to the three blank cheques, which, as stated by him, were given by the applicant to one Chhangani to lodge a false complaint against the complainant under section 138. He also lodged the two complaints, through one Usha Kataria, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the complainant. Insofar as the first case under section 138, lodged by Chhangani, is concerned, it appears that the complainant had filed a writ petition for quashing in this Court, at Nagpur and that writ petition was disposed of by the High Court with directions to the trial Court to 8 8 8 dispose of the case under section 138 within the timeframe. In that writ petition, the main contention of the complainant was that Chhangani had no concern with the cheque, which was the subject matter of the case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Insofar as the other two proceedings are concerned, namely, 138 cases filed by Usha Kataria, it appears that Usha Kataria is a duaghter-in-law of Manilal Kataria to whom the cheques were given by the complainant. In view thereof, it is not possible,at this stage, to draw an inference that Usha Kataria also filed two cases under section 138 at the instance of the applicant. There is no dispute that after 2006, no new proceeding is either instituted or the applicant has used the documents executed by the complainant in favour of Kataria and which are allegedly in possession of the applicant in any form whatsoever. Even if it is assumed that the proceedings under section 138 filed by Chhangani and Usha Kataria are filed at the instance of the applicant, it cannot be stated that he used the valuable securities, in the form of cheques, against the complainant. Neither Mr Borulkar nor Mr Mohite, learned counsel for the respondent could point out as to what use the applicant has made of the documents, 9 9 9 which were executed by the applicant in favour of the complainant for obtaining the loan of Rs.12,87,500/-. It is in this backdrop, I do not find that custodial interrogation of the present applicant is required and the interest of justice would be met if he is directed to report to the concerned police station and cooperate with the investigation. Hence, I pass the following order. . In the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties to make up the said amount subject to the conditions stipulated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Further, the applicant is directed to report to the concerned police station on every Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday between 12 noon and 3 pm for a period of one month and thereafter on every Monday between 12 noon and 3 pm for a period of 90 days from today or till filing of the chargesheet, whichever is earlier. . This order of anticipatory bail shall remain operative till filing of the chargesheet. It is open to the applicant to apply for regular bail after filing of the chargesheet. 10 10 10 . While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. . The application is disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)