Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 851 (JHR)

Salil Narayan @ Sai Narayan v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-05-11

ANANT BIJAY SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT Anant Bijay Singh, J. (C.A.V.) - The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 751 of 2015 for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that under order dated 07.02.2017, with the consent of the parties the matter was referred to the Secretary, JHALSA for mediation but the mediation has failed and the matter was to be heard on merit and accordingly, the same is hereby heard on merit. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the complainant filed the complaint which was sent to the police station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. upon which F.I.R was lodged giving rise to Sector IV P.S. Case No. 187 of 2014 under sections 406/420/120B I.P.C. against the petitioner and his firm but after investigation, police has submitted final form showing the case as civil dispute, thereafter on the protest, this complaint was lodged alleging therein that the firm of the complainant namely, M/s. Metal Zone is engaged in the business of consultancy in various fields and one another firm namely M/s. Akarshan Infra Developers (P) Ltd. through its Director namely Salil Narayan, i.e the petitioner approached the said firm of complainant regarding generation of business in Housing sector in Bokaro area with Bokaro Steel Officers Housing Cooperative Society Ltd and thereafter, A.K. Singh the Chairman of Bokaro Steel Officers Housing Cooperative Ltd has been contacted who has also shown his interest upon the proposal of the complainant and then due to efforts of the complainant, a meeting was fixed between the petitioner and A.K. Singh for the above purpose. It is alleged that it was raged by the petitioner that if the work order wold be granted for the said project under such condition, then he would pay an amount of Rs. 70.00 lakhs as an advance towards consultancy and business development charges and further, it was also agreed at his own that he would further make payment of 3% of the total work order value paid to him for the said project and in this regard, both the complainant and accused had entered into an agreement on 12.08.2013. It is further alleged that the petitioner refused to pay any amount in the light of agreement between both the sides on 12.08.2013, although several reminders were made for the same. It is further alleged that the petitioner refused to pay any amount in the light of agreement between both the sides on 12.08.2013, although several reminders were made for the same. On the basis of these allegations, the instant complaint case has been lodged. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and it wrong to suggest that the petitioner has entered into agreement. Further, it has been submitted that before institution of this case, the complainant had filed a complaint on 01.08.2014, which was sent to the police station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. upon which F.I.R. being Sector-IV P.S. Case No. 187 of 2014 under Section 406, 420, 120B I.P.C. was lodged against the petitioner and his firm but after investigation, police submitted final form showing the case as civil dispute, thereafter on the protest, this complaint was lodged. Further, it has been submitted that the contract between Bokaro Steel Officers Housing Developers Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi was executed only on L-1 Basis which makes it very clear that the said contract was given to the Akarshan Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi only because the company was the lowest bidder. Further, it has been submitted there is no question of favouritism from the complainant''s company in case were the contract that is executed abides all the legal procedure. The demand of money on the basis of this agreement is just mere way of blackmailing the petitioner and his company. Further, it has been submitted that that as per the norms of the petitioner''s company any agreement on behalf of the company is not valid till a resolution is passed by the company, thereby authorizing is a director to sign the agreement and in the present case there was no such resolution passed by the company. The complainant was pretty well aware about the complete fact. It has also been submitted that the case appears to be arising out of breach of contract which is a civil dispute but the instant case has been lodged only to harass the petitioner. 5. Learned A.P.P as well as learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. 6. It has also been submitted that the case appears to be arising out of breach of contract which is a civil dispute but the instant case has been lodged only to harass the petitioner. 5. Learned A.P.P as well as learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. 6. Learned counsel for the O.P. NO.2 filed counter-affidavit stating therein that the petitioner intended to cheat the respondent since inception as he himself is showing lacunae in the agreement executed between the petitioner and the informant dated 12.08.2013 in which petitioner has made signature over each and every page and thus averment made in the petition that the informant instituted the complaint petition in order to blackmail the petitioner is totally false rather it appears that in order to wriggle out from the instant criminal case, the petitioner is making such false allegation against the O.P. No. 2. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not only cheated the informant/respondent no. 2 but due to his nefarious and fraudulent activities instantly one F.I.R has also been instituted against him vide Karnal City P.S. Case No. 229 of 2017 and thus it appears that the petitioner is a habitual offender, copy of the Web of the Karnal P.S. Case No. 229 of 2017 has been annexed as annexure-2 to this counter-affidavit. Further, it has been submitted that through the matter was petitioner was appearing before the Mediation Cell, JHALSA but his bail was cancelled by the Hon''ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Cr. M.M. No. 37739 of 2015 and further his Special Leave Petition vide SLP (Criminal) No. 419 of 2016 has also been dismissed by the Hon''ble Apex Court vide order dated 30.06.2016, web copy of the order dated 30.06.2016 in S.L.P (Crl) No. 419 of 2016 of the Hon''ble Supreme Court has been annexed as annexure-3 to this counter-affidavit and under the aforesaid circumstances, the motive intention, conduct of the petitioner can be estimated as section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act coupled with section 53 of the Indian Evidence Act. 7. Learned A.P.P. produced the case diary. 7. Learned A.P.P. produced the case diary. From perusal of para 5 of the case diary, it appears that I.O has recorded the re-statement of the informant, in para 06 I.O has recorded the evidence of witness-Bidyawati Devi, in para 7 of the C.D. I.O has recorded the evidence of witness-Sanjay Kumar, in para 08 statement of witness-Partho Sathi Sen, in para 09 I.O. has recorded the statement of witness-Madhu Kumar Kanth, in para 10 of the case diary, I.O. has recorded the statement of witness Abhishek Bhardwaj who have supported the case of prosecution. Vide para 40 of the case diary, there is supervision report of the case in which the case was found to be true. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears that though the case is of civil dispute between the parties but in view of the conduct of the petitioner and also considering the fact that the petitioner is also accused in Karnal City P.S. Case No. 229 of 2017 and his bail was cancelled by the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.