RAMDHARI DEVNARAYAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Jha has divided his submissions on three divisions, (1) the allegations made by the complainant are of civil nature and, therefore, this is a matter pertaining to the domain of jurisdiction of Civil Court; (2) no ingredients of criminal offence has been indicated by the complaint made by the complainant, (3) the applicant has given a flat to complainant to reside and, therefore, there is no whisper of commission of criminal offence, leave aside the offence punishable under the provisions of section 420 of I. P. C. He pointed out that these points have been dealt with by number of judgments of various High Courts and Supreme Court. He prayed for direction in the nature of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

(2.) SHRI Konde Deshmukh for the prosecution submitted that the act of giving a flat to the complainant which is situated in an unauthorised zone of the building itself shows the credibility of the applicant. Shri Konde Deshmukh submitted that a case of offence punishable under the provisions of section 420 of I. P. C. has been spelled out and, therefore, the bail application deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) IT is true that in cases which are revolving around the averments touching commercial transactions there is a thin line of demarcation demarcating a matter pertaining to the domain of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and a matter pertaining to the domain of the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court. Therefore, it is necessary to enable the investigating agency to go for complete investigation. While dealing with the alleged offences punishable under the provisions of criminal or penal laws, it is true, that the Court has to consider whether the F. I. R. or the complaint is making out a prima facie case of the ingredients of the penal sections. In this context, the words "wrongful gain", "wrongful loss", "fraudulently", "dishonestly", have to be considered. It is necessary to find out prima facie whether the alleged accused has given the promises to the complainant inducing him to do overt act which makes him to part with the property. If not, then the accused would be getting a favourable wind. Otherwise, that will have to be considered appropriately against him. Prima facie, it is to be seen whether the accused had given a promise and had induced the complainant to act on it and whether in pursuance of that promises, the complainant had acted and parted with the property. For that purpose, investigation is necessary. The judgments of which Shri Jha has said in the submissions are dealing with the decided cases. Therefore, the ratio cannot be applied to the present case as it is because this is a case in which still the investigation is to be completed and charge-sheet is yet to be filed.