CHARLES D.M. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sec. 318(4) of BNS, 2023 (Corresponding Sec. 420 of IPC), in Crime No.26 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

(2.) The defacto complainant is engaged in the gold business. On 27/3/2025, the first and second accused approached the defacto complainant, representing that they were also engaged in the same business and that they could procure gold from abroad and sell the same at the prevailing online market rate. Believing their representation, the defacto complainant agreed to enter into the said business transaction. Thereafter, the first accused demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00, which was paid in cash. In addition, a sum of Rs.17,00,000.00 and Rs.6,00,000.00 was transferred to the bank account of the third accused, who is the wife of the first accused. Subsequently, despite assurances, the accused neither purchased the gold nor returned the amount. On repeated demands, the first accused handed over a Nexon car and assured that the jewels would be returned on or before 27/3/2024. However, the accused failed to repay the total sum of Rs.25,00,000.00. Therefore,a complaint made to the respondent police and the respondent police registered a case in the above stated crime number for the alleged above said offences.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was a money dispute between the defacto complainant and the accused persons and the same was purely civil in nature and criminal colour was given to the civil dispute. He further contended that, in the event of any default in repayment, it is open to the defacto complainant to initiate appropriate civil proceedings for recovery of the amount and that the very registration of the FIR is illegal. Therefore, he prayed for allowing this petition.