ORDER

1. This is the first anticipatory bail application under section 438 of Cr.P.C in connection with Crime No.1780/2021 registered at Police Station Simrol, Dist. Indore for offence under sections 405, 415, 420, 463, 464, 467, 120-B of the IPC.

2. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they have been elected as President and Secretary of the Society - Swami Vivekanand Takniki Sanstha, who runs educational institute conducted in compliance of the order of this Court and after about six months of that election, the complainant, who being to be the President prior to the election again declared herself President of the society and made a private complaint alleging that some amount (Rs.74,07,606/-) has been misappropriated by the petitioners by forging her signatures while handwriting expert's report filed at Page 86-234 shows that no such forgery has been committed by the petitioners. Since the petitioners were duly elected President and Secretary of the Society, they were entitled to withdraw the alleged amount which they have admittedly used to distribute the salary of the employees and used to meet the expenses of the society, therefore, neither the offence of forgery nor the offence of misappropriation of any amount is made out.

3. It is further submitted that this is a private complaint and the petitioners are not required for the purpose of investigation. Nothing has to be recovered from their possession. Their presence or their arrest are not required for any purpose. They are ready to appear before the trial court and to cooperate with the trial which will take its own time. No useful purpose would be achieved by putting them in jail. They are permanent resident of their given address. There is no possibility of their absconding or tampering with the evidence. This is a civil dispute which has been given colour of criminal dispute by the complainant. Since the arrest warrant has been issued by the trial Court, the petitioners are apprehending their arrest, therefore, they be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the petition. At the outset, he referred to the order dated 25.4.2022 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.56504/2021, in a petition filed by the petitioners under section 482 of Cr.P.C. directing the petitioners to appear before the trial Court and to secure regular bail within a period of 15 days from the date of the order and till then the police were directed not to take any coercive action against them.

5. In reply, it is submitted that while granting opportunity to appear before the trial Court and to apply for regular bail, this Court never intended or has never directed the petitioners to surrender before the trial Court. Order does not reflect that right of the petitioners to approach this Court to seek anticipatory bail has ever been taken away by the order referred to by the respondents, therefore, aforesaid order does not create any bar over the power of this Court to entertain, consider or to decide the very first application of the petitioners filed for seeking anticipatory bail. A legal question was raised in MCRC No.56504/2021 filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. to the effect that issuance of arrest warrant against the petitioners on the very first day of order of registration of a private complaint is contrary to the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2008) 10 SCC (CRI) 259 and the contention of the petitioners was upheld by this Court and interim protection was granted to them. Provisions of section 482 and 438 of Cr.P.C. deal with two distinct and independent fields. None of them has overriding effect over the powers conferred by either of the section. Right of the petitioners to approach this Court to get anticipatory bail cannot be taken away while exercising powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. therefore, this Court is competent to consider and decide the petition despite