Shashank Gupta vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And Another

Facts

The applicant, Shashank Gupta, sought anticipatory bail in a case involving charges of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The prosecution alleged that the informant booked a flat in a project by D.S. Infra Heights Private Limited, paid a significant amount, but neither received the flat nor a refund. The applicant, a director of the company, argued that the dispute was civil in nature, stemming from the informant's failure to deposit the complete amount as per the agreement, leading to the cancellation of the allotment. The applicant offered to refund the amount or provide alternative accommodation. The court, in an interim order, noted the dispute appeared civil and granted anticipatory bail, subject to cooperation with the investigation.

Held

The Court held that the dispute prima facie appeared to be of a civil nature. The applicant had offered to refund the complainant's deposited amount or provide alternative accommodation, demonstrating a willingness to resolve the matter. The applicant also undertook to cooperate with the ongoing investigation. Considering these factors, the interim protection granted earlier was made absolute. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. The application for anticipatory bail was allowed, making the interim protection permanent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dispute primarily constitutes a civil matter or warrants criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 409, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, considering the alleged non-delivery of a flat and non-refund of payment? (Mixed question of law and fact) Petitioner's Argument: The applicant argued that the dispute is fundamentally civil, arising from the complainant's failure to adhere to the terms of the agreement by not depositing the full sale consideration, which led to the cancellation of the flat allotment. The applicant, as a director, is not solely responsible for board decisions. Revenue/State's Argument: The State, through the Additional Government Advocate and the complainant's counsel, opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, asserting that the actions constituted cheating and criminal breach of trust. They sought time to file objections and were granted it.