TITLE: Sandipbhai Bhikhubhai Padsala Versus State of Gujarat
Decided On-: August 17, 2023
7336 of 2023
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Nizar S Desai
INTRODUCTION-
The applicant seeks anticipatory bail in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860, through the current application preferred under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Kaushik Kumudchandra Kapadia filed the relevant FIR against the applicant, alleging that he is a partner of Kapadia Marketing Incorporation, Kapadia Finvest Tradeo, and Kapadia Investment and that he is authorised to lend the money. According to the FIR, the applicant is well-known to him, and he previously borrowed money from each of the three firms mentioned above, according to the first informant. Additionally, it is stated that from 2012–13 to 2022, the current applicant borrowed a total of Rs. 11,02,88,561 from Kapadia Marketing Incorporation, which included Rs. 2,79,10,039 for a registered mortgage of land. The current applicant borrowed a total of Rs. 5,80,91,764.86 from another company, namely Kapadia Finvest Tradeco, plus interest and money for land, for a total of Rs. 16,83,80,326.18. According to the mortgage deed for the subject property, if the current applicant does not pay back the money he borrowed within 24 months of the mortgage deed’s execution, he is required to execute a sale deed for the subject property in the first informant’s favour. Due to the applicant’s failure to pay back the amount borrowed, a registered Sale Deed for the property in question had to be executed. For this purpose, the first informant paid Rs. 3,04,000/- in Stamp Duty via E-challan before the Sub-Registrar, and the document was duly signed by both parties. An appointment was also made for the Sale Deed’s execution. The Sale Deed could not be executed because the current applicant was not present on that specific date, and as a result, the first informant filed the FIR.
COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION
A notice under Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code was given to the applicant for recording his statement.
The applicant hasn’t helped with the investigation, though, despite notice being served on him on 29.3.2023, asking him to appear before the investigating officer. In addition, he argued that because of the large sum of money involved in the alleged offence, as well as the applicant’s behaviour and the fact that he is currently being prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act because checks that the applicant gave to pay back money he borrowed bounced, the present applicant should not be given consideration for anticipatory bail. Appearing for the respective parties are knowledgeable advocates. Words are contradictory, I discover after reading the record.
There are lawsuits in the form of civil lawsuits, suits before the Commercial Court, and complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The agreement was still supposed to be signed in September 2021, though. The first informant then started proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act after the checks written by the present applicant bounced. After that, both the first informant and the current applicant filed commercial lawsuits and civil lawsuits, respectively. Knowledgeable Senior Counsel Mr. K. B. Anandjiwala, who is arguing on behalf of the first informant, disputes that the lawsuits are
To the contrary, interim orders in the nature of status quo were made in those lawsuits with the express consent of the current first informant, which is documented by the relevant Court, according to learned Senior Counsel Mr. Nanavaty. After reading through all of the aforementioned documents, it appears that there have been financial transactions between the parties, and because the current applicant hasn’t followed through on his commitments, this has led to numerous legal disputes. that the offence in question needs to be thoroughly investigated and, therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to reject the present application. Accordingly, the present application is denied in light of the seriousness of the offence, the conduct of the present applicant, and the fact that three offences of a similar nature have been registered against the applicant. Therefore, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, the applicant’s behaviour, and the fact that three offences of a similar nature have been registered against him/her, I am of the opinion that the offence in question needs to be thoroughly investigated. Consequently, taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to reject the present application, and as a result, the present application is denied.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Steffi Desousa
