Commercial Dealings Given Color Of Criminality To Circumvent Bar Of Limitation: Bombay High Court Allows Anticipatory Bail Application Of Accused

The High Court was considering an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

The Single Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav observed, “It is not the prosecution case that Applicant participated in forgery. The allegations appear to relate to a failed investment and land acquisition transactions and the subsequent grievance is predominantly of a civil nature. The factual matrix including the prior relationship between the parties, the joint incorporation of a company, the absence of written agreements supporting the alleged payments, and the Applicant’s limited role, suggest that dispute arises out of commercial dealings which are now being given a color of criminality possibly to circumvent the bar of limitation in civil proceedings as also protraction in litigation.”

Advocate R.K. Sharma represented the Applicant while Advocate Tejas Kothalikar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Applicant, First Informant and their common friend Vinod Shukla are Merchant Navy Sailors. It was the prosecution's case that the Applicant introduced First-Informant and Vinod to Accused 2, a land broker. Sometime in the year 2017, Accused 2 introduced all three of them to a 2.5-acre land parcel for investment purposes. In July 2017, First Informant's wife, Vinod Shukla and Applicant executed various documents seeking mutation of their names in the 7/12 extract for the land purchased by them from several farmers/vendors through several registered Sale Deeds. It was alleged that all three friends formed a company, and the First Informant, Vinod Shukla and the Applicant's wife invested in purchasing three land parcels.

However, the Applicant expressed his wish not to continue as Director in the Company, and he resigned in the year 2018. It was alleged that the applicant was one of the beneficiaries/recipients under the aforesaid land transactions. It was alleged that Accused 2-broker prepared and facilitated the entire documentation process of all three land transactions with different/several vendors/farmers. The First Informant alleged that the documentation prepared by Accused 2 turned out to be forged and fabricated since he was unable to mutate their names in the land revenue records. In view of the aforesaid allegations of Applicant and Accused 2 having received an amount of Rs 1.35 crore paid partially in cash and cheque, an FIR was filed.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that prima facie on perusal of record, it appeared that the core allegation of the prosecution case pertained to two principal facets - first, introducing the Accused-broker to the First Informant and Vinod Shukla and alleged misrepresentation that the land parcels were freehold agricultural land, and secondly, receiving amount of Rs 65.25 lakh. “From the record of the case, it is seen that this is a case of failed business arrangement and land transactions between parties who are previously well known to each other and who engaged in a prospective commercial venture. Applicant, First-Informant and his friend Vinod Shukla are all Merchant Navy sailors well acquainted with each other before the subject transactions in question”, it said.

It was also noticed that there was an unexplained delay of nearly 4 to 5 years in the filing of the FIR, which raised doubts about the prosecution charges. With regard to the alleged transaction of Rs 65.25 lakh paid to the Applicant, the Bench found that no prima facie believable documentary evidence was placed on record to corroborate the fact that the Applicant received the monies, considering the magnitude of the alleged payments at 3 different points of time. Prima facie, it was seen that the payments were received by the vendors of the land parcels. “Moreover, contradictory figures and inconsistencies in the amounts paid to Applicant further diluted the prosecution case which is crucial at this prima facie stage”, it added.

The Bench noted that no evidence was placed on record to depict the alleged fraudulent intention of the Applicant at the inception stage, as co-accused 2 introduced the said land parcels in his capacity as a broker. It was prima facie seen that the said business transaction to acquire land was taken jointly, and the Applicant’s role was limited to introducing the parties and facilitating preliminary steps, which did not amount to an offence under Section 420 of the IPC.

“In the present case, it is seen that the First-Informant and his friend Vinod Shukla have not instituted any civil Suit for recovery of their money allegedly paid to the Applicant for purchase of the said lands. Considering the facts in the present case and having regard to the nature of dispute between the parties delineated herein above which is predominantly civil in nature, process of criminal law has been pressed into service for settling a civil dispute”, it said.

Thus, the Bench allowed the anticipatory bail application and ordered, “In the event of the arrest, Applicant be enlarged on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.”

Cause Title: Tayyab Haider Siddique v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:225790)

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocates R.K. Sharma, Soheb Shaikh

Respondent: Advocates Tejas Kothalikar, Karma Vivan, APP Sukanta A. Karmakar

Click here to read/download Order