9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 570 - HC - Companies LawSeeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - signature of some of the shareholders is forged is incorrect - forged and fabricated Power of Attorney - offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of IPC with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - HELD THAT - This court is of the opinion that non-availability of Original Power of Attorney alone would not call for any custodial interrogation. It can be seen that applicant Mukesh Bhanwarlal Bhandari, who is a senior citizen has appeared before the Investigating Officer on 09.06.2022, 26.06.2022, 16.08.2022, 23.08.2022. The applicant Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari also appeared on 09.06.2022, 22.06.2022, 14.08.2022, 16.08.2022 and 23.08.2022 before the Investigating Officer. The offences alleged against the applicants are under Sections 420/468/471/120-B of the IPC. The maximum punishment is up to seven years with a fine. The offences in question are triable by Magistrate. There is no reasonable apprehension of the accused persons to tamper with the evidence or to influence the witnesses. They being permanent residents of the State of Gujarat, having their movable and immovable property therein, cannot be expected to flee from justice. There are no criminal antecedences except a few litigations between the parties. There is no significant interest of the public or of the State involved in the matter. The dispute predominantly relates to dominance on a company. There is a long-standing dispute between both the groups. The accused have undertaken that at any stage of the investigation if they are able to get the Original Power of Attorney, they would produce it before the Investigating Officer. It is thus seen that merely on the ground that the Original Power of Attorney is not available with the Investigating Officer, the accused cannot be denied the benefit of anticipatory bail when it is found that they have been able to prove all other factors in their favour. This Court finds it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to both the applicants. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants be released on anticipatory bail subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of ₹50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer/SHO of the concerned Police Station and also subject to the further conditions imposed. Application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of FIR under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. 2. Allegations of forgery and fabrication of Power of Attorney. 3. Jurisdiction of Delhi Police to investigate the case. 4. Requirement of custodial interrogation. 5. Grant of anticipatory bail and conditions thereof. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of FIR under Section 195 of Cr.P.C.: The applicants argued that the FIR is not maintainable under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C., and only a written complaint to the concerned Magistrate is permissible for offenses under Sections 171 and 181 of IPC. They contended that the allegations of forged signatures fall under these sections, making the FIR invalid. The court did not explicitly address this argument in the final decision, focusing instead on the broader context of the case and the need for anticipatory bail. 2. Allegations of Forgery and Fabrication of Power of Attorney: The applicants were accused of forging a Power of Attorney to gain relief from NCLT and NCLAT. The complainant alleged that out of 151 shareholders, only 77 had signed the Power of Attorney. The applicants contended that more than 130 shareholders had confirmed their signatures, and the FIR was a result of malice and vexatious prosecution. The court noted that the allegations of forgery were serious but also acknowledged the ongoing disputes and multiple litigations between the parties, including proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. before NCLT and NCLAT. 3. Jurisdiction of Delhi Police to Investigate the Case: The respondents argued that the Delhi Police had jurisdiction to investigate the case despite the pendency of similar applications under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. before NCLT and NCLAT. The court did not find any jurisdictional issues preventing the Delhi Police from investigating the matter, thus allowing the investigation to proceed. 4. Requirement of Custodial Interrogation: The respondents emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to verify the signatures, identify the fake shareholders, and recover the Original Power of Attorney. The applicants countered by stating that they had cooperated with the investigation and appeared before the Investigating Officer multiple times. The court found that non-availability of the Original Power of Attorney alone did not justify custodial interrogation, especially since the applicants had cooperated with the investigation and there was no reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice. 5. Grant of Anticipatory Bail and Conditions Thereof: The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants, considering factors such as their cooperation with the investigation, lack of criminal antecedents, and the civil nature of the dispute. The court imposed several conditions, including: - Furnishing personal bonds of Rs. 50,000 each with one surety. - Joining the investigation as directed. - Not tampering with evidence or contacting prosecution witnesses. - Informing any change of residential address/contact details. - Regularly appearing before the Trial Court. - Not leaving India without court permission and surrendering passports. - Assisting in locating the Original Power of Attorney. The court concluded that the allegations and the overall facts did not warrant custodial interrogation and granted anticipatory bail to ensure a fair investigation without undue harassment of the applicants.
|
