Bharat Machhindra Khedkar vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Held

The Court held that the applicants deserved anticipatory bail. Regarding the allegations of financial fraud and forgery, the Court noted that the matter appeared to be primarily an accounting dispute, and criminal law is not intended for money recovery. The Court found that the applicants had cooperated with the investigation to a considerable extent, supplying documents as and when demanded. It was observed that forcing applicants to supply documents that may not exist would be inappropriate. The Court also considered that the complainant had already filed cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, indicating a dispute over legally enforceable debt. For Bharat Khedkar, the Court noted his resignation from the complainant's firm long before the alleged fraud and that his role as plant head and involvement in fraud would be determined during evidence appreciation. The Court concluded that custodial interrogation was not essential for any of the applicants, as they had cooperated and nothing significant remained to be recovered. Therefore, the applications for anticipatory bail were allowed, and interim protection granted was confirmed.

Facts

Three applicants, Shripal Kawadiya, Kushal Kawadiya, and Bharat Khedkar, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 160 of 2024 registered for offences including cheating and forgery under the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that Shripal and Kushal, who ran firms manufacturing automobile parts, in conspiracy with their employees, including Bharat (a former employee), committed financial fraud by creating false entries in account books, fabricating credit notes, and preparing false job work invoices. The complainant discovered the alleged fraud in 2021 after suspecting irregularities. The applicants, Shripal and Kushal, claimed they were engaged in legitimate business transactions with the complainant, including purchasing raw materials and providing job work, and that GST was paid on these transactions. They alleged the complainant misused blank cheques and filed false private complaints. Bharat claimed he was a workman who resigned due to salary disputes and was not involved in accounts or fraud.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the allegations of financial fraud, forgery, and cheating? 2. Whether the applicants have cooperated with the investigation by providing the demanded documents? 3. Whether custodial interrogation of the applicants is essential for unearthing the truth? The applicants argued that they had cooperated with the investigation and supplied all demanded documents, asserting that the dispute was purely an accounting matter and the complainant was attempting to recover money through criminal proceedings. They also highlighted that the complainant had filed cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act prior to the FIR. The State and the first informant argued that the applicants did not cooperate with the Investigating Officer, failed to supply requested account information, and that their custodial interrogation was essential to uncover their involvement in the alleged fraud and collusion with the complainant's employees. They contended that there was no contract for job work and that the applicants were beneficiaries of the fraud.