The court emphasized the importance of custodial interrogation in cases involving allegations of cheating and the need to uncover conspiracy and money trail.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The present bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.) has been filed on the behalf of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in FIR bearing no. 0939/2022, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 406/420/506/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC').

2. Issue notice. Mr. Manoj Pant, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of State.

3. Brief facts of the present are that on 23.11.2022, the present FIR was registered on the complaint of complainant, wherein she alleged that three accused persons namely Manoj Soni, Rakesh Soni and Mukesh Soni (applicant) fraudulently cheated the complainant for Rs.2.27 Crores. The accused persons apprised her that they are involved in gold business in which they import gold 3-4 times a month, from which they manage to save around 10% profit on each transaction. They allured the complainant that they would give her around 20% above on the prevailing market rate of gold. They offered to make jewellery for her at half the labour rate than market rate and further promised to deliver the jewellery within 4/5 months. Thereafter, the accused persons demanded Rs.50 lakhs in advance from the complainant and the complainant paid Rs.20 lakhs through cheque dated 22.11.2021 into Manoj Soni's account, Rs.15 lakhs through cheque dated 22.11.2021 into Mukesh Soni's account and Rs.15 lakhs through cheque dated 22.11.2021 into Rakesh Soni's account. It is also alleged that the accused persons allured her to buy silver utensils for her daughter's marriage and God idols of silver for her house. The complainant placed an order and paid Rs.30 lakhs in cash and Rs.30 lakhs by RTGS, from her bank account on the commitment of Manoj Soni to deliver the order within a period of 15 days. Thereafter, the complainant was in need of cash due to her daughter's wedding, so she went to sell her jewellery at "Durga Jewellers" to the accused persons, weighing 2700 gm, worth Rs.1,17,00,000/- as per market value. In lieu of the same, Manoj Soni handed over 5 cheques of total value of Rs.1,10,00,000/- and informed her that the remaining balance amount of Rs.7,00,000/- would be paid in cash within a period of 2 weeks. The complainant alleged that the cheques were dishonoured by the bank due to `insufficient funds'. Next day, the complainant visited "Durga Jewellers" along with Sanjeev Soni (brother of the complainant), and accused Manoj Soni promised that within 2-3 days, he would deposit sufficient amount in her bank account. The complainant doubted his intension and asked to cancel all the previous orders for gold jewellery of Rs.50,00,000/-, silver utensils and God idols of Rs.60,00,000/- and asked Manoj Soni to return her money, who then promised to return the money within one week. After one week, when Manoj Soni was contacted, he sought two more days to repay the money. After 2 days, the complainant, along with Sanjeev Soni went to collect her belongings, and to their surprise, shop was found closed. The complainant was also made aware that Manoj Soni had cheated many persons of crores of rupees. After few days, the complainant again visited their shop and met Manoj Soni there, who told her that he had no money, jewellery or any orders. It also alleged that Manoj Soni abused her and threatened her to not visit his shop again. Thereafter, the complainant had got registered the present FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the present case is a clear-cut case of cheating and that the applicant and other co-accused persons are habitual offenders. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant also filed on record copy of FIR no. 101/2022 dated 06.05.2022 for offence punishable under Section 420/409/384/120B IPC of police station Mabak Chowk, District Jaipur, Rajasthan which had been registered against Manoj Soni, Rakesh Soni and some other persons. The said FIR had been quashed