MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

                     [2012] 7 S.C.R. 979


                 MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE                              A
                                V.
            STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1376 of 2012)

                    SEPTEMBER 7, 2012
                                                                     B
       [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]

     CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:

     s. 438 - Anticipatory bail - Complaint against appellant for    C
committing forgery in lease deed and other documents in
respect of property belonging to complainant and furnishing
false information to Education Authorities - Held: It is true that
the parties have also approached civil court for various reliefs
- At the same time, considering the seriousness relating to          o
additions/alterations made in various documents, information
furnished to the Education Authorities which, according to
them, are incorrect, and in order to secure possession of those
documents, custodial interrogation of appellant is necessary
- Courts below rightly rejected the relief of anticipatory bail -    E
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.420, 465, 468 and 471 rlw s.34 /PC.

     Respondent No.2-Trustee of a Charity Trust filed a
complaint against the appellant-Founder President and
Managing Trustee of a Technical Education Society for
offences punishable u/ss 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with             F
s.34 IPC stating that the Charity Trust leased certain
properties to the appellant to run the school housed in a
building on the said property, under a lease deed for a
period of 35 months w.e.f. 15.4.2008, and when on the
expiry of the lease period, i.e. on 9.3.2011, the possession         G
of the said building and land was to be handed over back
to the Trust, it was revealed that the appellant had made
forgery in the lease deed and other documents and
asserted his claim over the property. The appellant
                             979                                     H
    980      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A applied for anticipatory bail which was also opposed by
  the State on the ground that he had produced copies of
  false documents and submitted false information to the
  Education Department while obtaining permission for
  running the school. The prayer was declined by the
B Additional Sessions Judge as also the High Court.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

         HELD: 1.1 The Additional Sessions Judge and the
    High Court while considering the application for
C   anticipatory bail scrutinized/analysed the materials. It is
    true that the parties have also approached the civil court
    for various reliefs. At the same time, there are serious
    allegations against the appellant relating to corrections/
    additions/alterations made in various documents,
D   information furnished to the Educational Authorities
    which, according to them are incorrect, and allegation that
    the appellant has made false representation before the
    Public Authority on the basis of those documents for
    obtaining necessary permission. This Court is, therefore,
E   of the view that in order to bring out all the material
    information and documents, more particularly, to
    ascertain in respect of the documents which were alleged
    to have been forged and fabricated and which are in
    possession of the appellant and in order to secure their
F   possession, the custodial interrogation is necessary.
    Therefore, in view of the mandate prescribed in s.438 of
    the Code, the Additional Sessions Judge and the High
    Court were right in rejecting the relief of anticipatory bail.
    [Para 12, 14] [986-D-H; 987-A, C]

G     1.2 It is stated that after the order of this Court dated
  23.09.2011 granting interim protection to the appellant, he
  has misused his liberty in creating hindrance to the
  investigation and continues to scuttle it and also has
  been intimidating and pressurizing the complainant as
H well as the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, the
       MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE v. STATE OF                      981
                 MAHARASHTRA

interim protection granted by this Court on 23.09.2011                A
shall stand vacated. [Para 13, 15] [987-8, DJ

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1376 of 2012.
                                                                      B
     From the Judgment & Order dated 19.09.2011 of the High
Court of Judicature of Bombay in Criminal Application No. 786
of 2011.

    Mukul Rohtagi, Ranjit Kumar, Krishnan Venugopal, V.
Prakash, Vineet Naik, Sukand Kulkarni, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Brij        C
Kishor Sah, Anish R. Shah for the Appellant.

    Prashant Bhushan, Chinmoy Khaldkar, Sanjay V. Kharde,
Asha Gopalan Nair, for the Respondents.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                       D

     P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.
    2. This appeal is directed against the final order dated
19.09.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
in Criminal Application No. 786 of 2011 whereby the High              E
Court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail filed by the
appellant herein.

    3. Brief facts:

    (a) The appellant is the Founder President and Managing           F
    Trustee of Sinhgad Technical Education Society, Pune (in
    short 'the Society'). The Society is engaged in imparting
    formal and informal education by establishing various
    schools, colleges and institutions in the State of
    Maharashtra. Respondent No.1 is the State and Chainsukh           G
    Sobhachand Gandhi-Respondent No.2 herein is the
    original Complainant and is a Trustee of Pawan Gandhi
    Charity Trust (in short 'the Trust') working for the upliftment
    of economically and socially impoverished sections of the
    socie~.                                                           H
    982      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A         (b) Respondent No. 2 was running a school on land
          bearing Survey No.154/6/1 admeasuring 57 acres
          situated at Ambavet, Tai. Mulshi, Dist. Pune, on which a
          building in the area of 650 sq. mts. was constructed. In the
          year 2008, it was decided to run the School with the help
B         of other educational institutions by leasing out the property.
          Respondent No. 2 approached the appellant herein for the
          same. The appellant herein has also shown interest in
          acquiring lease hold rights in order to run school activities
          in the said property. Pursuant to the same, negotiations
c         took place and it was offered to lease out the said school
          building for a period of 87 years and to sell the other
          property, viz., land bearing Survey No. 165/1 admeasuring
          8500 sq. mts., Survey No. 162 admeasuring 7600 sq. mts.,
          Survey No. 160/1 admeasuring 1900 sq. mts. and Survey
          No.161admeasuring21300 sq. mts. situated atAmbavet,
D
          Tai. Mulshi, Dist. Pune for a consideration of Rs.
          3,50,00,000/-.

          (c) Accordingly, two separate Memorandums of
          Understanding (MoUs) were executed on 10.05.2008.
E         Both the memorandums were duly notarized and
          registered. On 13.05.2008, in order to realize the object,
          the Trust leased out the said property to the Society for a
          period of 2 years and 11 months commencing from
          15.04.2008 and expiring on 09.03.2011 by way of an
F         interim arrangement for an amount of Rs. 1/- towards lease
          fee for the entire duration of the lease granted. This deed
          was duly registered with the office of sub-Registrar, Mulshi
          (Paud) at S.No. 3701/2008.

          (d) On 19.02.2011, the appellant-Society received a legal
G
          notice to remove the dead stock and articles kept in the
          school within 4 days and further to vacate the school and
          to handover the possession in favour of the Trust alleging
          breach of the clauses mentioned in lease deed dated
          13.05.2008. By reply dated 07.03.2011, the appellant-
H
          Societv denied the said allegations.
       MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE v. STATE OF                    983
        MAHARASHTRA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

     (e) The Trust filed an application under S~ction 41 E of the    A
     Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 before the Joint Charity
     Commissioner, Pune seeking prohibitory orders against
     the appellant-Society.

     (f) Aggrieved by the inaction of the Trust, the appellant-      B
     Society also filed two separate suits bearing Special Civil
     Suit bearing Nos. 1146 and 1147 of 2011 before the Civil
     Court, Pune.

     (g) On 20.07.2011, respondent No.2 filed a complaint with
     the Deccan Police Station, Pune under Sections 420, 465,        C
     468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
     Code, 1860 which was registered as S.No. 168 of 2011.

     (h) Against the said complaint, the appellant filed an
     application bearing No. 2651 of 2011 before the Court of        D
     Additional Sessions Judge, Pune for grant of anticipatory
     bail. By order dated 29.08.2011, the Sessions Judge
     dismissed the said application.

     (i) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred
     Criminal Application No. 786 of 2011 before the High            E
     Court. By impugned order dated 19.09.2011, the High
     Court dismissed the said application. Against the said
     order, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special
     leave petition.
                                                                     F
     4. Heard Mr. Mukul Rohtagi and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned
senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Chinmoy Khaldkar,
learned counsel for Respondent No.1-State and Mr. Prashant
Bhushan, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2-Complainant.

     5. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether   G
the appellant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail
under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908
(in short 'the Code').

     6. Inasmuch as the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in the       H
    984    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A order dated 29.08.2011 and the High Court in the impugned
  order dated 19.09.2011 adverted to all the factual details
  relating to the appellant-accused and the Respondent No. 1-
  State and Respondent No. 2-Complainant, there is no need to
  traverse the same once again except certain aspects which are
B essential for the di!?posal of the present appeal. According to
  the Complainant/respondent No.2 herein - Pawan Gandhi
  Charity Trust had been established in the memory of his son
  and the Trust had a land on which a building was constructed
  for running a school. The appellant claims to be the founder
c President and Managing Trustee of the said Society and the
  Trust had a land bearing Survey No. 154/6/1 admeasuring 57
  acres on which building in the area of 650 sq. mts. was
  constructed. An English Medium School was started in the
  building in 2005 known as Loyala School. In March, 2008, it
  was offered to lease out the said school building for a period
0
  of 87 years and also to sell other property of the Trust to the
  Society. Based on the negotiations, two separate Memorandum
  of Understandings (MoUs) dated 10.05.2008 were signed
  between the parties.

E      7. It is the claim of the Complainant-respondent No.2 herein
  that on 13.05.2008, a lease deed for a period of 35 months
  w.e.f. 15.04.2008 was executed and registered between the
  parties and it was agreed not to act upon the two MoUs. On
  the expiry of the lease period i.e. on 09.03.2011, the Society
F was to handover the possession of the said building and the
  land to the Trust.

       8. It is the stand of the first respondent-State and the
  second respondent-Complainant that the present appellant
G made a forgery in further lease deed dated 07.03.2011
  pertaining to the granting of lease for 87 years without the
  consent of the Complainant. It is also stated that on the same
  date, the appellant also made a forgery by making additions/
  alterations in the original draft agreement for lease which was
  prepared at the time of executing the MoU and got it franked.
H
       MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE v. STATE OF                     985
        MAHARASHTRA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

It is also their grievance that the document was notarized in the    A
year 2008 and even in the said notarized document, forgery was
committed by the appellant. It is the contention of the
Complainant that on the basis of the forged document, the
appellant asserted his claim over the property.
                                                                     B
     9. During the course of hearing, Mr. Rohtagi, learned senior
counsel for the appellant by taking us through the MoUs and
lease deed and also the corrections in those documents
submitted that those corrections have been made with the
consent of the Complainant and according to him, no forgery          C
has been committed as claimed by the respondents. He
pointed out that inasmuch as the sale deed could not take
place and the property of the Trust could be leased out for a
period of more than 3 years without the permission of the
Charity Commissioner, the lease deed for a period of 35
months was executed and registered as stop-gap arrangement           D
with an understanding that the Trust would approach the
concerned Assistant Charity Commissioner for necessary
permission and, thereafter, the lease deed for a period of 87
years in respect of the school building and the sale deed about
the larger property could be executed and registered.                E

      10. In the course of argument, learned counsel appearing
for the State vehemently opposed the claim of anticipatory bail
and contended that custodial interrogation of the appellant is
necessary because he has forged several documents and also           F
submitted false information to the Education Department while
obtaining permission for running the school. It is further pointed
out that he has also produced copies of false document. It is
his claim that unless custodial interrogation. of the appellant is
granted, it would not be possible to seize all those documents       G
from him. In other words, according to the State, the appellant
has committed not only the offence of forgery in respect of
private documents but also made false representations and
committed offence of cheating by giving false information to the
Education Department, thus committed an offence not only             H
    986     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A   against the State but also against the public in general.

       11. Like the counsel appearing for the State, Mr. Prashant
  Bhushan, learned counsel for the second respondent-
  Complainant by drawing our attention to various materials
8 including corrections in the documents and several
  communications with the Educational Authorities as well as the
  letter dated 04.07.2012 of the Deputy Collector, Mavai Sub-
  division, Pune addressed to Senior Police Inspector,
  Bundgarden Police Station, Pune submitted that in view of the
  conduct and involvement in various heinous offences, the
C appellant is not entitled indulgence by this Court for any relief.

          12. As observed above, all the three counsel appearing
    for the parties took us through MoUs, lease deed and other
    correspondence/communications with the Educational
D   Authorities as well as the report of the Deputy Collector, Pune,
    to Senior Police Inspector, Bundgarden Police Station, Pune.
    It is also relevant to point out that all these materials were
    scrutinized/analyzed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune
    and the High Court while considering the application for
E   anticipatory bail. It is true that the parties have also approached
    the Civil Court for various reliefs. At the same time, as pointed
    out by counsel for the State and the second respondent-
    Complainant, considering the seriousness relating to
    corrections/additions/alterations made in various documents,
F   information furnished to the Educational Authorities which,
    according to them, are incorrect, we are of the view that in order
    to bring out all the material information and documents,
    custodial interrogation is required, more particularly, to ascertain
    in respect of the documents which were alleged to have been
G   forged and fabricated. In the said documents and other
    materials which are in the possession of the appellant and the
    allegation against him that he has made false representation
    before the Public Authority on the basis of those documents for
    obtaining necessary permission, as pointed out by the State,
    in order to secure possession of those documents, custodial
H
       MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE v. STATE OF                      987
        MAHARASHTRA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

interrogation is necessary. For this reason, the Additional            A
Sessions Judge and the High Court rejected the claim for
anticipatory bail.

      13. In addition to the same, it is stated by the respondents
that after the order of this Court dated 23.09.2011 granting           B
interim protection, the appellant has misused his liberty in
creating hindrance to the investigation and continues to scuttle
it and also intimidating and pressurizing the Complainant as
well as the prosecution witnesses.

     14. In the light of the above discussion and in view of the       C
mandate prescribed in Section 438 of the Code, we fully agree
with the conclusion arrived at by the Additional Sessions Judge
and the High Court in rejecting the relief of anticipatory bail.
Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
                                                                       D
     15. In view of our order dismissing the appeal, the interim
protection granted by this Court on 23.09.2011 shall stand
vacated and the appellant is granted two weeks time from today
to surrender and seek regular bail. It is also made clear that
the conclusion arrived at by the courts below including the            E
present order relates only to eligibility or otherwise of the relief
of anticipatory bail and the trial Court is free to decide the bail
application de hors to the above observation and in
accordance with law.

R.P.                                          Appeal dismissed.        F