DHEERAJ SONI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first anticipatory bail application under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.82/2024 registered at Police Station - Pulgaon, District-Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Ss. 420, 406 and read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (for short 'IPC')

(2.) Prosecution case, in brief, is that, the complainant namely Rajendra Jain lodged a written complaint before the concerning Police Station on 31/1/2024 alleging that the main accused namely Manish Soni is neighbour of the complainant and works as goldsmith. The complainant and main accused Manish Soni were having good relation as a result of which the complainant handed over 150 grams of gold to the main accused Manish Soni and in return Manish Soni will provide him finished gold ornaments and jewellery. Even after the laps of substantial period of time Manish Soni didn't return the Gold of the complainant and later on Manish Soni has ran away from Durg district and subsequently the complainant got to know that Manish Soni has went to house of his brother-in-law present applicant at Kondagaon. The complainant went to Kondagaon and asks Manish Soni to return back his gold, thereafter, the present applicant gave assurance to the complainant, that Manish Soni will return the gold of the complainant soon, as a result of which the Manish Soni has also signed a blank stamp paper and handed over to the complainant. On the basis of the said complaint on the very same date 31/1/2024, FIR was registered for offences punishable under Ss. 420, 406 and 34 of IPC against the Manish Soni and present applicant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The bare perusal of the entire case of the prosecution would patently make evident that there is no iota of evidence against the applicant to establish prima facie that the applicant is guilty of committing an offence punishable under Sec. 420 and 406 of IPC. The only mistake committed by the present applicant is that the assurance was given by him to the complainant that main accused will return back his gold soon. From bare perusal of the First Information Report, as the allegation against the applicant is he has given assurance to complainant that he cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating. There was no fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise or at the beginning of the transaction to Sec. 420 of IPC. He further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in case of Bimala Tiwari vs. State of Bihar in SLP (CRL) No. 834- 835 of 2023 held that the process of criminal law cannot be used for arm twisting and money recovery as the recovery of money is essentially within the realm of civil proceeding. He further submits that the present applicant is unknown to the complainant and in order to settle down the personal score with the applicant, it has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court that to constitute an offence of cheating, merely committing a deceitful act is not sufficient unless the deceitful act dishonestly induced a person to deliver any property or any part of a valuable security, thereby resulting in loss or damage to the person. He later submits that the complainant has not shown or given any source of income of 150 gms of gold or any evidence of delivery of gold. Solely on the basis of the oral statement by the complainant the FIR are has been registered and no preliminary enquiry has been conducted by the police authorities as the matter related to pure commercial dispute and no inducement or cheating has been committed by the present applicant. Merely on the basis of the assurance given by the present applicant to the complainant the FIR has been registered against the present applicant, thereafter, the police authorities without conducting the preliminary enquiry straightaway registered, the FIR which is gross violation of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases and no specific date and time has been mentioned by the complainant about the alleged incident in the entire FIR. The applicant is ready to abide by all the directions and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.