JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Chandel, J. - Both the anticipatory bail applications relate to a same crime number, therefore, they are decided together.

2. The anticipatory bail applications have been preferred by the Applicants apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.627 of 2019 registered at Police Station Supela Bhilai, District Durg for offences punishable under Sections 469, 420, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66C of the IT Act.

3. According to the prosecution, Complainant Suresh Kothari is one of the Directors of Mahaveer Awasiya Yojna Private Limited and Rajat Buildcon India Private Limited and is having about 72% shares of Rajat Buildcon India Private Limited and 28% shares of Mahaveer Awasiya Yojna Private Limited. Both co-accused Anjay Surana and Rajat Surana and Prakash Jayaswal, who is one of the present Applicants are other Directors of the company. On 5.1.2019 and 15.1.2019, two written complaints were made by the Complainant. It has been alleged by him that in the month of August, 2017, Sanjay Jain (Dhariwal), who is one of the Applicants herein, along with co-accused Anjay Surana hatched a conspiracy and appointed Anjay Surana's son Rajat Surana (co-accused) as a Director and pressurised the Complainant for resignation. On 15.12.2018, when the Complainant was browsing company's website, he did not find his name as a Director of the company. Thereafter, he came to know that without his knowledge, both the present Applicants and other co-accused persons, on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, uploaded on the website of Registrar of Companies (ROC) a form having No.DIR11, which is a notice for resignation of the Complainant as a Director and filed form No.DIR12 for resignation of the Complainant using digital signature of co-accused Rajat Surana. On the basis of said two complaints, police registered the crime in question. Later on, during the course of investigation, offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code were also added.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the present Applicants submitted that the allegations levelled against the Applicants clearly demonstrate that there was an inter se dispute between the Directors of the company. It was submitted that Section 245 of the Companies Act provides remedy of class action and, therefore, alternative remedy is available with the Complainant. But, on account of the Complainant's political influence, the offences in question have been registered against the present Applicants. The allegation made by the Complainant that his resignation has been filed without his knowledge is false and has no force. The Complainant, vide letter dated 1.12.2018 addressed to the Board of Directors, resigned due to some personal reasons and requested to accept his resignation from the office of the Director of the company. The Board of Directors, as per Section 168 of the Companies Act, strictly followed the relevant provisions and informed the Registrar of Companies (ROC) regarding resignation of the Complainant. After receiving the resignation from the Complainant, the same has been filed for DIR11 and DIR12 with digital signature of Rajat Surana. Both DIR11 and DIR12 have been filed from the office of SMR and in this regard the statement of Sudhir Dwivedi, who is a partner of Applicant Sanjay Jain, has been recorded. Sudhir Dwivedi has categorically stated that the Complainant came along with his original resignation and thereafter forms DIR11 and DIR12 were uploaded on the website of the ROC. This clearly shows that there is no involvement of any of the Applicants in the offences in question. According to the Counsel, after filing of form DIR11, a message is automatically sent to the concerned persons and in the present case also the message was sent to the Complainant and he is fully aware of the fact, but he has made a false allegation. He has falsely stated that this fact came to his knowledge for the first time on 25.12.