1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1248 OF 2010 Meher Guruswarup Shrivastava .... Applicant Andheri (W), Mumbai Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent (at the instance of General Branch CID, EOW, Sahar Airport P.S.) Mr. Girish Kulkarni, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Bagla Dandekar i/by M/s Bagla Dandekar & Co. for Intervener. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP for State-respondent. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 31st August, 2010 P.C. 1. The applicant apprehends his arrest in C.R.No. 41 of 2009 registered with General Branch, CID, EOW, Sahar Airport Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. The other accused in the complaint is the father of the applicant. The applicant had earlier filed application for anticipatory bail before the Court of Sessions, which was rejected by the order dated 6th March 2010. 2. The complainant, Ganeshkumar Satishkumar Gupta filed the complaint alleging that father of the applicant one Guruswarup Shrivastava represented to him that he has clear and marketable title to the land bearing survey No.117, Hissa NO.3, CTS No.1427 situate at 2 Marolgaon, Taluka Andheri (East), Mumbai. On the basis of the representation, the complainant had entered into the transaction for purchase of the land for a sum of Rs.13,86,00,000/-. By the time of execution of the Memorandum of Understanding, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,94,04,000/- to the father of applicant towards earnest money. Thereafter, when a public notice was issued calling for objections to the transaction, it was learnt that National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Limited (NAFED) had been sold the land on 15th July 2006. In connection with that transaction, the NAFED had made a complaint and CBI had charge- sheeted the applicant and his parents for having cheated the NAFED. The record shows that there is also an order of restraint passed by Arbitrators against the applicant and his father from creating any third party interest in the land in question. It appears that thereafter the father of the applicant tried to settle the dispute the complainant and issued a cheque in a sum of Rs.2,07,90,000/-, which cheque was dishonoured, when presented for payment. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that he is not a party to the transaction of sale between his father and the applicant. At ground h of the application, he claims to have only accompanied “ ” the father to the meetings with the complainant. It is alleged that he is roped into this case only for pressurising the father, to meet 3 the demands of the complainant. 4. The record shows that the original complainant has been allowed to intervene in this application to oppose grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant without filing any application for intervention. Therefore I have heard the counsel for the complainant. He submits that the applicant has been making false statements before the court. He has produced copy of the application for anticipatory bail filed before the Sessions Court, in which the applicant has made a categorical statement at three places that he did not go to the office of the complainant and did he attend any meeting with the complainant. The complainant then produced communications from the father of the applicant which falsified the claim made. Thereafter the claim has been given up in the present application with a categorical admission at ground h of having attended the “ ” meetings. The other dishonest conduct of the applicant is raising dispute as regards appropriation of money received by the complainant. The complainant has during the pendency of the present application been paid a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- by the applicant. According to the applicant that payment was entirely be adjusted towards the principal amount. The complainant however has produced xerox copy of cheque dated 22nd May 2010 in the sum of Rs.59,90,124/- bearing No.298867 drawn on Allahabad Bank, 4 Mumbai. The endorsement on the reverse side of the cheque shows that the payment was made towards the interest on the principal sum of Rs.2,07,90,000/-. On that payments, TDS payments, TDS was deducted as per the rules. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant cannot be said to have been committed offence because he is not party to the actual transaction. It is argued that merely because, he had accompanied his father at the time of negotiations, he cannot be said to have been committed the offence. Further it is pointed out that the father of the applicant had made similar application for anticipatory bail in which the Police had made a statement that they will issue 72 hours notice to the father as and when they intend to arrest him. The learned APP states that this statement was made on behalf of the Police, at that time as the Police were uncertain about the jurisdiction to the court as regards the complaint. Now that uncertainty being over, she submits that the application needs to be considered on its own merits. Considering the facts of the case and the conduct of the applicant, this Court has not inclined to exercise its special and discretionary powers to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Hence, the application is rejected. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J) (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)