RAJESH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant has preferred this application under Sec. 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 1144/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Ss. 420 406 and 34 of IPC.

(2.) Case of the prosecution is, that complainant Ravish Gandhi has lodged report before the concerned police station 14/8/2021 stating therein that applicants along with their relatives Laxmeshwar Thakur, Uddav Thakur and Nikhil Thakur came his house and have stated that they have started one investment company and if he will invest amount in the company he will get a return @ 30% quarterly profit and if he wants to return the invested amount, it will be returned immediately. On the basis of assurance given by applicant along with other co-accused persons, complainant deposited Rs.11,20,000.00 after collecting money from different persons. When complainant demanded his money back with interest they have not returned the same for one or the other reason. Later on they have issued two cheques on 26/12/2019 which were dishonored and thereafter complainant realized that he has been cheated and report was lodged to the concerned police station based on which crime against applicant and other three co-accused persons was registered.

(3.) Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the allegations in the complaint and FIR are absolutely false and baseless. Complainant has extended hand loan to Laxmeshwar of Rs.11,20,000.00. For returning loan amount, co-accused Laxmeshwar given two cheques on 9/9/2019, when the cheques were deposited in the bank account of complainant for its clearance on 23/9/2019 they were dishonored against which complainant filed a complaint case under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act read with Sec. 420 of IPC before the Court of competent jurisdiction on 3/2/2020. Copy of which is placed on record along with covering memo. He submits that in the complaint lodged under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act complainant has mentioned that he has handed over the money as hand loan and not as investment with return @ 30% quarterly which is the subject matter of FIR. He submits that from the contents of complaint filed under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and also of FIR, it is apparent that the complainant has made false and frivolous allegations against applicants, hence, they may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.