IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that civil and criminal remedies can coexist, and the existence of a civil remedy does not bar criminal prosecution for offences such as cheating and breach of trust.

ORDER :

1. This is an anticipatory bail moved on behalf of the petitioners in relation to FIR No. 0005/2024, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Ganganagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. I may briefly refer to the relevant aspects of case of prosecution, as emerging from the F.I.R. allegations which inter alia are that complainant firm deals in agricultural commodities. The directors of the accused company “Om Shri Shubh Labh Agrotech Private Limited” are Girraj Bansal, Ketan, and Akhilesh. The company purchases agricultural commodities through its directors. Credit account of the transactions made by the accused with the complainant has been ongoing since April 1, 2020. As of April 1, 2023, the complainant was owed a total of Rs. 6,71,92,431.25 by the accused. The three directors of the company acknowledged this debt and assured early payment. They issued a cheque for Rs. 5 crore dated December 12, 2023, for this payment. However, the cheque was dishonored when deposited in the bank. In this manner, the accused has committed criminal breach of trust by deliberately usurping the goods and not paying for the commodities purchased on credit from the complainant. On the basis of aforesaid report, a formal FIR was registered against the petitioners and matter is under investigation.

3. To begin at the beginning Shri Jaipal Choudhary and Mr. Hitesh Kumar, learned counsel representing petitioners have fervently argued that both the parties were in business transaction since 01.04.2020; that entire dispute between the parties pertains to an alleged excess claiming amount against their sale; that the petitioners were not agree to pay more than the actual due amount (i.e. Rs. 3,12,56,652/-); that the complainant has concocted this false and fabricating story by misusing the security cheque; that both the parties were doing business and for the said purpose, the complainant company took few blank cheques as security cheques; that the matter pertain to purely of civil and commercial dispute but with malafide intention complainant has given it a criminal colour by way of filing this FIR; that no offence of cheating or fraud can be established since there was no dishonest intention from the very beginning of the transaction; that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and also made a representation dated 18.01.2024. Further, the petitioners are willing and ready to settle the dispute amicably.

4. It is also argued that custodial interrogation of petitioners is not required; that there are no allegations of petitioners tampering with evidence and nothing is to be recovered from petitioners; that their antecedents are impeccable; that the petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a false case.

5. Therefore, to protect their liberty, an order of anticipatory bail may be passed in favour of the petitioners. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following judgment:

1. Jay Shri & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan (SLP (Crl.) No. 14423/2023, decided on January 19, 2024)

6. From the other side, learned Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by Shri Sachin Acharya, learned Senior Counsel for the complainant, have strongly objected to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that Criminal prosecution cannot be thwarted at the initial stage merely because civil remedy is available. Instant criminal cases has to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the availability of a civil remedy, cannot be made a basis for anticipatory bail.

7. It is further argued that there are serious allegations against the petitioners and on the basis of material collected so far, investigating officer has reason to believe that petitioners are guilty of offences of cheating and breach of trust of a huge amount.

8. Lastly, it was urged that benefit of anticipa