2020 (10) TMI 151 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Bail - Dishonor of cheque - present applicant has been made accused because he is father of the proprietor of the said firm and looking after his business - applicant submits that the applicant is nowhere connected with the said firm - HELD THAT - The dispute of the complainant is with the son of the present applicant i.e. Manoj Chouksey who is sole proprietor of the firm Deepti Construction in respect of the payment of certain amount for the material supplied by him. From the face of it, the present applicant is not concerned with the said dispute. Hence, the application deserves to be allowed. Without commenting on the merit of the case, this application is allowed - It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending arrest in connection with multiple offenses.
2. Dispute regarding non-payment of material supplied and involvement of applicant in the FIR.
3. Opposing arguments on whether the applicant is entitled to protection from arrest.
4. Decision on granting protection from arrest and bail conditions.

Analysis:

1. The judgment pertains to the first application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the applicant apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.134/2020 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Dewas, concerning offenses under sections 406, 420, 506 & 34 of the IPC. The applicant, Kantilal Chouksey, sought protection from arrest, claiming he was wrongly implicated in the case.

2. The prosecution story revolved around a complaint lodged by Jagjeet Singh Tuteja regarding non-payment for building material supplied to Deepti Construction. The FIR implicated the proprietor of the firm, Manoj Chouksey, and the applicant, who is the father of the proprietor. The applicant contended that he was not connected to the firm's operations and was included in the FIR to pressurize the main accused.

3. The applicant's counsel argued that the dispute was commercial in nature, and any dues should be settled through appropriate legal proceedings rather than involving the police. On the contrary, the complainant's counsel opposed the plea, stating that the applicant had issued a bounced cheque for the payment, leading to proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Panel Advocate for the respondent/State also opposed the application.

4. The Court considered the facts and observed that the dispute primarily involved the son of the applicant, who was the sole proprietor of Deepti Construction. Concluding that the applicant was not directly involved in the dispute, the Court allowed the application. The Court directed that in case of arrest, the applicant would be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ?50,000 with one surety. The applicant was also instructed to cooperate with the investigation, and the application was disposed of accordingly.