Rakhi Mathur vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Home, U.P. Lko. And 2 Others

Facts

The applicant, Rakhi Mathur, sought anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 0006/2023, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) concerning alleged fraud, forgery, criminal intimidation, and extortion. The FIR stemmed from a business dispute involving the complainant and her husband, who invested in a company directed by the applicant's husband. Allegations included the fraudulent transfer of company shares, evasion of GST, and obtaining a loan through forged documents. The applicant's husband allegedly coerced the complainant and her son into resigning as directors and transferring shares. The complainant also alleged criminal intimidation and illegal encroachment of land. The applicant contended that the allegations were concocted, the dispute was civil in nature, and that the complainant and her son were still shareholders. She highlighted the pendency of civil suits and an arbitration clause in their Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The applicant claimed no criminal antecedents and offered cooperation in the investigation.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, Rakhi Mathur. The primary reasoning was that the dispute, based on the submissions and the documents presented, prima facie appeared to be of a civil nature. The Court noted the pendency of two civil suits related to the subject matter, which supported the contention that the issues could be civil disputes. Furthermore, the Court considered that the applicant had no criminal history and had undertaken to cooperate in the investigation. The Court also referenced the judgment of the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020) 5 SCC 1, which provides guidelines for granting anticipatory bail. The interim protection granted earlier was made absolute, subject to the applicant cooperating with the investigation, not influencing witnesses, remaining present when called for interrogation, and not leaving India without prior court permission. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, primarily concerning the transfer of company shares, the procurement of a loan, and land encroachment, constitute a criminal offense or a civil dispute, thereby warranting anticipatory bail for the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the dispute was purely civil in nature, involving mismanagement of company affairs and contractual disagreements. They emphasized the pendency of civil suits and an arbitration clause in the MOU as evidence that such matters should be resolved through civil remedies, not criminal proceedings. They also contended that the allegations regarding share transfer and loan procurement were false and that the applicant had no criminal history and would cooperate with the investigation. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State, through the learned A.G.A. and the complainant's counsel, opposed the bail prayer. However, they did not provide specific counter-arguments or evidence to refute the applicant's claims regarding the civil nature of the dispute or the alleged fraudulent share transfer during the proceedings.