In a case involving allegations of forgery, cheating, and criminal intimidation stemming from a disputed financial transaction, the LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-57), Sri. T.Govindaiah, has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Anantha Rao Jadhav.

The petition, filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., sought protection from arrest in connection with the case arising out of PCR No. 5037/2022, registered by the Vijayanagar Police Station. The petitioner was accused of offences punishable under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 419 (Cheating by personation), 420 (Cheating), 465 (Forgery), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document), 504 (Intentional insult), and 506B (Criminal intimidation).

The court’s decision, pronounced on June 24, 2022, hinged primarily on the finding that the core dispute between the petitioner and the complainant was “purely civil in nature,” and that the circumstances of the case did not necessitate custodial interrogation.

The Allegations: Blank Cheque and Forged Signature

The case originates from a private complaint filed by Vikas Thimmappa before the XXIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. The complainant alleged that he and the accused, Anantha Rao Jadhav, knew each other.

The crux of the complaint revolves around a purported arrangement made approximately five years prior, where the accused assured the complainant that he would help secure a bank loan for house construction. In the process, the complainant claimed to have handed over his Election ID card and a blank cheque drawn on the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (HSBC) to the accused.

The complainant alleged that the accused failed to secure the loan and subsequently dodged requests to return the documents, claiming they were lost.

The Cheating and Forgery Claims

The dispute escalated when the accused, Anantha Rao Jadhav, allegedly misused the blank cheque. The complainant claimed that the accused illegally filled in the cheque for an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/-, forged the complainant’s signature, and presented it for encashment. The cheque was returned unpaid with the remark, “Signature Differs.”

The complainant further asserted that the accused then filed a false complaint against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act)—a cheque bounce case—in C.C. No. 2390/2019, solely with the intention of making a wrongful gain. After failing to get the Vijayanagar Police to register an FIR and subsequently sending copies of his complaint to the police station and the Commissioner of Police via RPAD, the complainant resorted to filing the private complaint (PCR No. 5037/2022).

Finally, the complainant alleged that upon learning of the PCR, the accused abused and threatened him with dire consequences, adding the charges of intentional insult and criminal intimidation to the complaint.

Petitioner’s Defense and Prosecution’s Stance

The petitioner, Anantha Rao Jadhav, sought anticipatory bail on several grounds:

• Pre-existing Dispute: He highlighted that he had already filed a complaint against the complainant under the N.I. Act, indicating a pre-existing transaction dispute.
• Civil Nature: He argued that the entire transaction was essentially civil in nature.
• Personal Circumstances: He claimed to be an innocent and law-abiding citizen, the sole bread-winning member of his family, and responsible for looking after his aged mother.
• Cooperation: He committed to cooperating with the Investigating Officer (IO) and abiding by any conditions imposed by the court.

The prosecution, through the Public Prosecutor, offered a short objection, stating that no case had been registered by the respondent police against the petitioner for the alleged offences, thus arguing that the anticipatory bail application was not maintainable.

The Court’s Rationale

The Sessions Judge addressed the core issue by examining the nature of the dispute. The court noted that the complainant himself admitted that the accused had filed a cheque bounce case against him. This admission, coupled with the entire transaction being “born out of the documents” (i.e., the cheque), led the court to conclude that the dispute was evident from the documents and was “purely civil in nature.”

The judge reasoned:

“Further the transaction between the complainant and petitioner is purely civil in nature. Therefore at this stage it cannot be said that the petitioner has cheated the complainant.”

Given that the facts were already documented, the court found no necessity for any custodial investigation of the petitioner, as there was little chance of the accused “hampering the investigation.” The petitioner’s claim of being a permanent resident of Bengaluru and his undertaking to cooperate were also factors in the favorable decision.

Order and Conditions

The court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner’s release on bail in the event of his arrest in PCR No. 5037/2022. The court imposed several strict conditions to safeguard the investigation:

• Bail Bond: The petitioner must execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum.
• Cooperation: The petitioner must appear before the IO as and when called for and cooperate with the investigation.
• No Tampering: The petitioner must not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or tamper with the evidence.
• Jurisdiction Restriction: The petitioner cannot leave the jurisdiction of the court without its prior permission.

The court explicitly warned that if any of the conditions are violated, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to move for the cancellation of the bail. The judgment, therefore, balances the accused’s right to liberty with the need to ensure a fair and untainted legal process in what is a complex mixed-dispute case.