Allegations Disclosing Civil Dispute Is Not A Ground To Halt Criminal Proceedings: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court observed that if the allegation discloses a civil dispute the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.
The Court said that it is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and import.
The Court was hearing Anticipatory Bail Petitions moved on behalf of the petitioners for the offences punishable under section(s) 420, 406 and 120B of the IPC and Section 23 of the Forward Contracts (Regulations) Act.
The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni observed, “If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue. Present transaction between the parties may have involved a breach of contract but ingredients of offence of cheating is also prima facie fulfilled. A wrongdoer cannot have right to dictate that the complainant should avail his remedy according to the wrongdoer’s convenience.”
Senior Advocate Vineet Jain appeared for the Appellant and PP Arun Kumar appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The FIR mentioned that M/s. Ganpati Multi Commodities Business (India) Pvt. Ltd., which is a commodity brokerage firm accused six petitioners from the same family of fraud. The company, led by director Dr. Jitendra Mittal, facilitated trading on NCDEX and MCX platforms. It was alleged that the petitioners opened six trading accounts with the firm, but after suffering significant losses during a price decline in castor seed contracts they failed to deposit required margin money. As a result of which the Exchange squared off their positions. The complainant and its clients suffered a loss of Rs. 40.04 Cr. The complainant alleged that the petitioners acted dishonestly, refused to settle the liability, threatened the complainant, and transferred their properties to avoid recovery. Charges under Sections 420, 406, and 120B of the IPC were filed, and the case is under investigation by the Rajasthan Police.
The Court said that the complainant had to suffer a substantial financial loss and damage to his goodwill solely due to the fraud and cheating committed by the petitioners.
The Court observed, “no person can be allowed to become unjust rich and thrive upon the goodwill and reputation of others which is got established over a period of years. If a person has legally speculated through someone else, then he and his properties are responsible for the consequences and later he cannot save his properties and remained rich at the cost of others and by ruining them.”
The Court said that since the case is at the threshold and the investigations are underway, it will be practically scuttling the investigation in case the anticipatory bail is granted.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the Anticipatory Bail Applications.
