Hem Karan Mathur vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. Of Home Lko. And Others

Facts

The applicant, Hem Karan 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 was lodged by a complainant who, along with her husband, had lived abroad for 35 years and returned to India to open a school. They allegedly entered into an agreement with the applicant's husband, who represented himself as the Director of New Vanshika Bio Agro Pvt. Limited. The complainant alleged that her husband was induced to provide 3 acres of land and Rs. 25,00,000/- for a 50% partnership in the company. Subsequently, the complainant and her son became Directors. The core of the dispute revolves around allegations of manufacturing spurious fertilizers, evading GST, criminal intimidation, and the fraudulent transfer of 100% company shares and obtaining a loan of Rs. 2.54 crores using forged documents. The applicant's husband is accused of these actions. The applicant's husband claimed the allegations were concocted, that the complainant and her son invested only Rs. 5,00,000/- as equity and Rs. 20,00,000/- as unsecured loan, and that the land was sold to the company. He also pointed to pending civil suits and an arbitration clause in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, Hem Karan Mathur. The Court noted that the learned AGA and counsel for the complainant could not demonstrate how the 50% share, as alleged in the FIR, had been transferred. The Court considered the submissions advanced, the provisions of the Companies Act, the pendency of two civil suits, and the fact that the dispute prima facie appeared to be civil in nature. It also took into account that the applicant had no criminal history, no active role was attributed to the applicant, and the applicant was a lady who undertook to cooperate in the investigation. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Court found it appropriate to grant interim protection. Subsequently, the interim protection was made absolute. The Court directed the applicant to cooperate in the investigation, not influence witnesses, remain present when called for investigation, and not leave 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, particularly regarding the transfer of 50% share of the informant and her son, are concocted and baseless, thereby indicating a dispute of a civil nature rather than criminal? (Relates to Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 447, 406, 384, 506 IPC). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the allegations concerning the transfer of 50% shares were false and that the shares of the informant and her son remained in the company. They contended that the financial contributions were different from what was alleged, and an MOU with an arbitration clause existed for dispute resolution. They further argued that the loan of Rs. 2.54 crores was an MSME loan to the company, not an individual against forged documents. The applicant highlighted that civil suits were pending regarding the land and that the matter was a civil dispute being given a criminal color. The applicant also stated they had no criminal antecedents and would cooperate with the investigation. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned AGA and counsel for the complainant opposed the bail prayer but could not demonstrate how the 50% share was transferred as alleged in the FIR. They were granted time to file objections.