Shripal Devkaran Kawadiya vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Held

The Court held that the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail. Regarding the allegations of financial cheating, forgery, and fabrication, the Court found that the overall facts revealed the case to be primarily an accounting matter. It noted that a detailed investigation had been conducted, necessary ledgers recovered, and the assistance of a Chartered Accountant taken. The Court observed that criminal law does not provide for recovering money through criminal proceedings, and the complainant's filing of cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act indicated a potential civil dispute regarding legally enforceable debts. Considering the cooperation extended by the applicants during the interim protection period, the Court concluded that sending them for custodial interrogation would serve no purpose. For applicant Bharat Machhindra Khedkar, the Court noted he had resigned long ago and that his involvement in fraud would be determined by evidence appreciation. It found that nothing remained to be recovered from him and he had cooperated with the investigation. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim protection granted and allowed the applications for anticipatory bail.

Facts

The applicants, Shripal Devkaran Kawadiya, Kushal Devkaran Kawadiya, and Bharat Machhindra Khedkar, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 160 of 2024 registered for offences under Sections 406, 408, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the complainant's firms, M/s. Shubham Industries and M/s. Amar Industries, engaged in manufacturing automobile parts, were defrauded by their employees in conspiracy with the applicants. False entries were allegedly made in account books, and fabricated invoices were issued. The applicants, Shripal and Kushal, claimed to be businessmen involved in manufacturing and trading automobile spare parts, operating firms registered under GST. They contended that their business transactions with the complainant were settled until 2020, and the complainant misused blank cheques for security. Bharat Khedkar stated he was a former employee who resigned due to salary disputes and denied involvement in accounts or fraud. The applicants claimed to have cooperated with the investigation and provided all demanded documents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail in FIR No. 160 of 2024, considering the allegations of financial cheating, forgery, and fabrication of documents under Sections 406, 408, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A read with Section 34 of the IPC? Petitioner's arguments: The applicants argued that they had cooperated with the investigation and supplied all requested documents. They contended that the dispute was primarily an accounting matter and an attempt by the complainant to recover money through criminal proceedings, which is impermissible. They also highlighted that the complainant had filed private complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act prior to lodging the FIR, suggesting a civil dispute. They asserted that nothing was to be recovered from them and that custodial interrogation was not essential. Revenue/State's arguments: The State and the complainant argued that the applicants did not cooperate with the Investigating Officer regarding ledger entries and account information. They contended that the applicants failed to produce GST assessment orders and were not entitled to bail. The complainant further argued that the applicants were beneficiaries of the alleged fraud, colluded with employees, and that custodial interrogation was essential to unearth the truth and their involvement in the crime. They claimed that the applicants deliberately withheld documents.