IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA th ON THE 25 OF NOVEMBER, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 42868 of 2024 ANKIT AGRAWAL Versus HARIOM BANSAL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Padam Singh and Shri Nikhil Shivhare, Advocates for the applicant.

Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, Advocate for respondent no.1.

Shri Ajay Kumar Nirankari, Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2/State.

ORDER This first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C/482 of B.N.S.S. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail.

2. The applicant apprehends his arrest by Police Station Kotwali, District Gwalior in connection with Complaint Case No.3879/2024 for offences under Sections 420, 409/34 and 120B of IPC.

3. According to the complaint, complainant happens to be the proprietor of Hari Om Enterprises. He had purchased sugar from M/s DCM Shriram Limited, Sugar Unit Roopapur. The accused persons, in connivance with each other, have caused financial loss to the complainant. Complainant had agreed to purchase 300 gunny bags of sugar for a consideration amount of Rs.9,92,565/-, out of which 145 quintals of sugar was supplied by the applicant, and the remaining 155 quintals of sugar was not supplied, whereas the amount has already been paid. Thus, it is submitted that according to the complainant, 155 quintals of sugar has not been supplied to the complainant.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND

4. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that it is a well established principle of law that business transactions should not be allowed to be converted into criminal cases. The dishonest intention should have been right from very inception, whereas in the present case, basic ingredient of cheating is missing. Trial is likely to take some time. The applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the Investigating Agency.

5 . Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by counsel for the State as well as the complainant. It is submitted by counsel for complainant that the complainant has filed an affidavit giving a declaration that he wants a decision on merits and he would never enter into a compromise with the accused persons.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. I.A. number 25061/24 has been filed by complainant along with affidavit which is to the effect that complainant would like to have a decision on merits and will never enter into a compromise with the accused persons. Thus, by filing this affidavit, complainant has tried to convince this Court that FIR has not been lodged with an intention to settle the civil dispute, but he would like to have a decision on merits. However, there are inherent defects in the affidavit. The affidavit runs in two pages. The undertaking has been given on the second page. The second page does not contain any endorsement by the Oath Commissioner, whereas the entire endorsements have been made on the reverse side of the first page. Furthermore, as per the endorsement made on the reverse side of the first page, the deponent was identified by Shri B.S. Gour, Advocate. However, the second page of the affidavit does not contain signature of the person who has identified the complainant. Thus, it is clear that the important page of affidavit, which bears the undertaking, has not been properly attested. Therefore, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND affidavit is rejected.

8. It is a well-established principle of law that civil disputes should not be allowed to be converted into criminal cases. The allegations appear to be related to business transactions. Accordingly, this court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

9. Accordingly, it is directed that in case the applicant appears before the Investigating Officer on or before 04/12/2024 and furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, then he shall be released on anticipatory bail