Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1353 (JHR)

Radha Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

2012-09-11

D.N.UPADHYAY

body2012
JUDGMENT : This case was instituted on the basis of complaint case being C.P. Case No. 154 of 2012, which was sent to the Police Station after which Dhanbad (Sadar) P.S. Case No.104 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 420/406/506/34 I.P.C. was registered against B.N.Hotel and petitioner Rajendra Kumar Gupta. 2. It is alleged that the firm known as M/s B.N.Hotel Pvt. Ltd. is having 73 decimals of land (details find mentioned in the complaint) and the property was mortgaged with the United Bank of India, Dhanbad against a loan taken by M/s World Metal Movers Ltd. Due to nonpayment of loan amount, the Bank has referred the matter to the Debt Recovery Tribunal where the property was likely to put under auction but in the meantime the accused petitioner approached the complainant and a sum of Rs. 55,00,000/ was paid to get the property redeemed and thereafter a development agreement between the parties was done and power of attorney was also executed in favour of the complainant. The constructions were also under progress but in the meantime some dispute arose because the petitioner did not hand over the Title Deed to the complainant and that caused financial constraints. Thereafter, the power of attorney and the agreement executed in favour of the complainant were cancelled and revoked. The parties have also approached the Court for arbitration. Since the complainant felt him cheated, he has lodged the instant case. 3. It is submitted that it is purely a civil dispute between the parties. The complainant himself has admitted in the arbitration proceeding that it is a trivial matter and the dispute arose only because Title Deed of the property was not handed over. Learned Counsel further submitted that Rs. 55,00,000/ was taken on account of security deposit and it is incorrect to say that the said amount was paid for the purpose of getting the property redeemed from the Debt Recovery Tribunal. He has further pointed out that the petitioner, namely, Ashok Kumar Gupta and Kanhaiya Lal Gupta have been made accused only because they are the Directors of M/s B.N.Hotel Pvt. Ltd. and they had done nothing. The detailed complaint is completely silent with regard to role played by any of them. 5. He has further pointed out that the petitioner, namely, Ashok Kumar Gupta and Kanhaiya Lal Gupta have been made accused only because they are the Directors of M/s B.N.Hotel Pvt. Ltd. and they had done nothing. The detailed complaint is completely silent with regard to role played by any of them. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the informant has submitted that M/s B.N.Hotel Pvt. Ltd. has preferred W.P.(Cr.)No.49 of 2012 for quashing of the case but it was dismissed with detailed order and he has referred paragraph 18 to 23 of the said order. 6. It is further submitted that Demand Draft of Rs.40,00,000/ was prepared by the complainant in favour of M/s World Metal Movers Ltd. and the deposit of draft mentioned in the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 7. It is further pointed out that conduct of petitioner Rajendra Kumar Gupta does not suggest to consider the prayer under Section 438 Cr.P.C. because he had given threat to the complainant for which Dhanbad (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 513 of 2012 has been registered against him. 8. Learned Counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Cr.Appeal No. 1331 of 2012 on 31.08.2012 “Lavesh Vrs. State (NCT of Delhi)”. The petitioner has been declared proclaimed absconder and he has neither cooperated with the investigation nor obtained stay order. 9. I have gone through the voluminous document annexed with the bail application and the counteraffidavits. The complaint was filed against M/s B.N.Hotel Pvt. Ltd. and Rajendra Kumar Gupta but after registration of Dhanbad Sadar P.S. Case No. 104 of 2012 remaining petitioners, namely, Ashok Kumar Gupta; Kanhaiya Lal Gupta; Mrs. Radha Gupta and Mrs. 9. I have gone through the voluminous document annexed with the bail application and the counteraffidavits. The complaint was filed against M/s B.N.Hotel Pvt. Ltd. and Rajendra Kumar Gupta but after registration of Dhanbad Sadar P.S. Case No. 104 of 2012 remaining petitioners, namely, Ashok Kumar Gupta; Kanhaiya Lal Gupta; Mrs. Radha Gupta and Mrs. Champa Gupta have been made accused only because they are the Directors of M/s B.N.Hotel Pvt. Ltd. I do not find any direct or specific allegation against them and therefore, the above named four petitioners are directed to surrender before the court below within three weeks from today and if they do so they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/ (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in connection with Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S. Case No. 104 of 2012, arising out of C.P.Case No.154 of 2012 ( G.R.No.392 of 2012 ) subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. So far as petitioner Rajendra Kumar Gupta is concerned, there is direct and specific allegation against him and he is the person, who represented M/s B.N.Hotel Pvt. Ltd. for all purposes and signed the documents whatever referred to above on behalf of the said firm. It appears that another case being Dhanbad Sadar P.S. Case No. 513 of 2012 has also been registered against him because he has given life threat to the complainant. 11. Considering all these aspect of the matter, I do not feel inclined to consider the prayer of Rajendra Kumar Gupta for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, his prayer bail stands dismissed in connection with the above mentioned case.