Manish Gupta vs State of U. P. - 2022 Supreme(All) 1254

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 1254

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
Manish Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.9423 of 2022
Decided on : 12-10-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Alok Ranjan Mishra

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 177, 182, 191, 192, 193, 196, 200, 207, 209, 463, 464, 468, 471, 120-B, 420, 504, 506, 6, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 79 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 70, 438, 482, 195(b)(i), 173(2), 156(3) – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 41 Rule 21 – First Appeal – Furnishing false information – False information – Giving false evidence – Punishment for false evidence – Using evidence known to be false – Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false – Dishonestly making false claim in Court – Forgery for purpose of cheating – Criminal conspiracy – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property – Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace – Nature and gravity of the offences – Punishment for criminal intimidation – Definitions in Code to be understood subject to exceptions – Wrongful gain – Dishonestly – Fraudulently – Reason to believe – Valuable security – Act done by a person justified – Quashing of First Information Report – Form of warrant of arrest and duration – Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest – An application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed by first informant, in Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, alleging that informant and his brothers are landlords and are in possession Cinema – Informant and his brothers had decided to rent said cinema hall – Held, matter is of family discord and civil proceedings have been going on between parties since 1983 – Applicant has challenged filing of final report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. by filing an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. wherein there is a possibility of an amicable solution to said dispute once for all – Matter of apprehension of arrest is in mind of accused and there are non-bailable warrant issued against applicant although, C.J.M., has passed an order to effect that applicant may appear in light of judgment application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is pending in this Court and offence does not fall within category of economic offences rather it may be termed to be of making false statement before executive officer – There is no likelihood of applicant absconding – Applicant is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Alok Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No.1532 of 2021, under Sections 177, 182, 191, 192, 193, 196, 200, 207, 209, 463, 464, 468, 471, 120-B, 420, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Shahar, District-Bulandshahr, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail during the pendency of the trial.

PROSECUTION STORY

3. An application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed by the first informant Mahesh Kumar, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr on 20.09.2021 alleging that the informant and his brothers are the landlords and are in possession of Jagdish Cinema. The informant and his brothers had decided to rent the said cinema hall to Vipul Mittal and Atul Mittal. On 06.09.2021 at about 08:00 AM, when the informant and his brothers were preparing a rent deed with deed writer Sudhir Gupta at the Jagdish Cinema hall then at about 08:30 AM, the applicant and co-accused persons Chandra Prakash Gupta and Pradeep Kumar along with three unknown persons came there, started hurling abuses at them and are stated to have demanded a ransom of Rs.1 crore in lieu of the said rent deed/ any sale-deed. On the same day at about 11:00 AM, when the informant and his brothers reached the office of Registrar then again the said six persons met them and misbehaved with them. The Sub-Registrar showed three applications filed by the applicant and his brothers to stop the registration of the said rent deed. The informant along with the persons accompanied with him perused the said three applications and it was found that the language used in the said applications are similar and the witness in one application is the complainant in another application. Further in the said applications, it was alleged that the Court below has passed an order dated 18.9.2002 in Case No.07 of 2008, Mahendra Kumar Vs. Chavli Devi, restraining the informant and his brothers to transfer the alleged property through sale-deed or any other means. The informant apprehended that the applicant and his brothers are trying to rent the said property to someone else. Thereupon, the applicant showed the other documents including the order dated 5.4.2011 wherein the informant and his brothers were declared as the sole owners of the said cinema hall and thereafter, the said rent deed was registered by the Registrar in spite of the said applications filed by the applicant and his brothers. It is also alleged that the applicant and his brothers have filed fake and forged documents before the Registrar and have interfered in his official work who is a public servant.

4. The accused persons have furnished false information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person, and have given false evidence and have used the said documents knowing them to be false, and have fraudulently claimed the property not vested in them and, thus, have committed forgery by preparing a false document for the purpose of cheating and dishonestly made a false claim in Court. Learned Magistrate had ordered for registration of FIR and after investigation, the charge-sheet against the applicant and his brothers has been filed on 03.11.2021.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that a Civil Suit No.97 of 1983 (Smt. Chavli Devi and others Vs. Mahendra Kumar and others) was filed for declaration regarding the ownership of property of Jagdish Cinema Hall and the same was dismissed ex-parte by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.4, Bulandshahr vide order dated 18.9.2002. Against the said dismissal order dated 18.9.2002, Smt. Chavli Devi and others had filed Civil Appeal No.204 of 2002 which was allo