Anticipatory bail can be granted even after a charge-sheet is filed, and inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.

JUDGMENT :

(Delivered by: Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.)

1. In a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge-sheet, after rejection of anticipatory bail application, learned Single Judge of this Court referred the following questions for determination by a Larger Bench:-

“(1) Whether an anticipatory bail application in a matter where a charge sheet has already been filed is declined, can this Court exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code to quash proceedings on an Application under Section 482 of the Code, subsequently made, or one that subsequently comes up for hearing? and

(2) If it can, is it open to the Court, seized of the Application u/s 482 of the Code, to pass an interim order of stay of proceedings, the effect whereof would be to relieve the applicant of his obligation to surrender and seek bail, though anticipatory bail has been declined on his application, earlier made for the purpose? This difficulty may arise in jurisdictions/Courts where there is a practice of filing applications seeking a 'rolled up relief', invoking simultaneously jurisdiction of the Court, under Section 482/438/439 of the Code.”

2. The petition for quashing of charge-sheet came to be filed on the premise that the offence alleged against the applicant was in fact a civil dispute, relating to payment of proceeds for the transfer of shares by the complainant of his Company i.e. Radius Infratail Pvt. Ltd. in favour of M/s. Viresh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., for a consideration of Rs.12 crores. For the purpose of transfer of these shares, four cheques were issued, all of which got dishonoured. Four separate complaints have been filed in respect of dishonour of cheques by the complainant at the Courts at Delhi. The proceedings in respect thereof are pending. The applicants therefore contend that in respect of self-same cause initiation of criminal proceedings at Gautam Budh Nagar is purposive and is an abuse of process of law.

3. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been admitted on the strength of submissions made by the applicant that no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate at Gautam Budh Nagar; that jurisdiction has been artificially created by the complainant for the purpose; dispute raised is commercial/civil in nature and proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are otherwise pending before the competent court at Delhi. The applicants have also sought appropriate interim protection against coercive steps initiated in the matter.

4. Admittedly, before filing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant sought protection against his arrest by seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The two Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Applications Nos. 7498 of 2020 and 7568 of 2020 came to be dismissed by this Court vide following orders:-

“8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as complicity of accused and also judgement of the Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198, this Court does not finds any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.”

5. While declining relief of anticipatory bail in the above noted anticipatory bail applications, this Court issued following further directions:-

“9. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed, that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as per the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P

10. Till then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

11. However, in case, the