Navnath Narayan Gole And Others vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail. The Court held that while a transaction might give rise to both civil and criminal disputes, the pendency of civil proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal or criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act did not estop a criminal investigation, particularly concerning allegations of forgery. The Court acknowledged that the applicants admitted the transaction and the transfer of a huge amount for customs duty and GST. It noted the investigating officer's contention that the applicant's company lacked the necessary license to deal with customs clearance. The Court found that the preparation of approximately 151 fake invoices, as alleged by the prosecution, warranted investigation. Furthermore, the Court observed that the applicants were not cooperating with the investigation, taking advantage of interim protection by seeking unnecessary adjournments to submit documents, thereby hampering the investigation. Therefore, the Court concluded that the applicants did not deserve the relief under the extraordinary powers of the Court and vacated the interim protection previously granted.

Facts

The applicants, Navnath Narayan Gole and Latadevi Yeshvant Kamble, along with two others (accused nos. 3 and 4), sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 329 of 2020 registered at MIDC Police Station, Ahmednagar. The FIR alleged offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including cheating and forgery. The applicants claimed the FIR was a concocted story, highlighting a prior transaction where the informant owed them money and that they had issued cheques. They also pointed to multiple criminal complaints filed by the informant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a demand notice under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and pending matters before the National Company Law Tribunal, suggesting forum shopping by the informant. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, argued that the informant, M/s. J.M. Industries Company Limited, had engaged applicant no. 1's company, Eashkrupa Shipping and Logistics (I) Private Limited, for customs clearance services. The applicants allegedly recovered an excess amount of Rs. 5,86,83,850/- and operated without a proper license, preparing approximately 151 forged invoices. The State contended that custodial interrogation was necessary due to the alleged forgery and the applicants' alleged non-cooperation with the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of cheating and forgery, and the existence of civil disputes and other legal proceedings. Petitioner's arguments: The applicants argued that the FIR was a concocted story and a result of forum shopping by the informant, given the existence of multiple Section 138 NI Act complaints, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code proceedings, and matters before the National Company Law Tribunal. They contended that the physical custody of the applicants was not required for the investigation as all documents had been submitted. They relied on the fact that the informant also owed them money and had issued cheques. Revenue's arguments: The State argued that the informant had the right to approach all legal authorities. They contended that the applicants' company lacked the necessary license for customs clearance, had recovered an excess amount of Rs. 5,86,83,850/-, and prepared approximately 151 forged invoices. They asserted that custodial interrogation was necessary due to the alleged forgery and the applicants' failure to cooperate with the investigation, despite interim protection. They argued that the existence of civil disputes or other proceedings did not preclude criminal investigation into forgery.