R. C. Chopra ( 1 ) THE petitioner has come to this Court under Sec. 438 read with Sec. 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 922/2000 registered at P. S. Kalkaji under Ss. 420/406 read with Sec. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) I have heard Mr. D. C. Mathur, Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner. and Ms. Richa Kapoor, learned counsel for the State. ( 3 ) THE facts relevant for disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the com- plainant Sashwat sud filed a complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New delhi alleging commission of offences under Sees. 420/406/120-B Indian Penal Code by the petitioner atanu Ghose and one Anido Ghosh. The allegations were that the petitioner by making false claims regarding his experience and research in the filed of software solutions for oil sector induced the complainant to float a Company under the name of M/s. Neural Magic systems in which the accused petitioner and his wife were also made Directors without any investment whatsoever. The petitioner was made Director In-Charge of the project. He inducted his co-accused Anido Ghosh as a full time consultant in the Company on a remuneration of Rs. 10 lacs per annum inspite of the fact that he knew that his bio-data was false. The complainant later came to know that the bio-data furnished by Anido ghosh was not true and he was not as qualified as he posed to be. The petitioner claim- ing to be Proprietor of one OICL report wanted Rs. 50 lacs for use of the said project report and received Rs. 10 lacs out of Rs. 50 lacs. The petitioner further induced the complainant to undertake a foreign trip with the petitioner for exploring his contacts for promotion of the business of the Company on which also the petitioner spent abut rs. 10 lacs. When no tangible results in the matter of procurement of business were forthcoming, the complainant became suspicious and embarked upon discreet in- quiries to allay his doubts and found that Anido Ghosh was not that qualified as he was represented to be. He also came to know that the representations made by the petitioner in regard to the project and his proprietorship of IOCL report were false and fraudulent. He also came to know that the representations made by the petitioner in regard to the project and his proprietorship of IOCL report were false and fraudulent. M/s. Price Water House Corporation informed the complainant that the petitioner had wrongfully retained copies of some extremely confidential reports and was selling the same to some unsuspecting Companies. The complainant prayed the Court to get the matter investigated under Sec. 156 (3) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. upon which learned magistrate forwarded the complainant to the police vide orders dated 20/12/2000. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has strongly objected to the manner in which the complaint was made over by learned Metropolitan Magistrate to the police without application of mind in regard to the need of sending it to the police for inves- tigations instead of inquiry by the Court itself. He relies upon the judgments in Madhu bala v. Suresh Kumar and Ors. , 1997 (8) SCC 476 and Arvindbhai Ravjibhai Patel v. Dhimbhai Sambhubhai Kakadia, 1998 (1) Crimes 351 to contend that the course adopted by learned Magistrate was totally unjust and unwarranted. He also argues that no offence under Ss. 420/406 read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code was even prima facie made out on the basis of the allegations in the complaint in as much as it was a purely commercial transaction and if the complainant himself was more than willing to act upon the representations of the petitioner without any cross-checking or verification, he had to blame none, but himself alone. According to him, at the most offences under section. s 403 and 417 appear to have been made out. While pressing for grant of an- ticipatory bail, he relies upon the judgments in Habib KJian v. State (NCT of Delhi), 1996 JCC 500 and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565 . ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the State on the other hand contends that before filing the present petition, the petitioner had filed a similar petition under Section 438 of /criminal PROCEDURE CODE. in the High Court of Calcutta also in which orders were passed on 12. 1. 2001. She submits that the petitioner had not complied with the said orders and as such, he was not entitled to move a second application before this Court for the same relief. in the High Court of Calcutta also in which orders were passed on 12. 1. 2001. She submits that the petitioner had not complied with the said orders and as such, he was not entitled to move a second application before this Court for the same relief. She also submits that conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to any relief form this court in as much as not only he cheated the complainant and defrauded him of large sums, but he was also trying to abuse the process of law by not complying with the or- ders passed by Calcutta High Court. She submits that on 28. 12. 2000, a notice under section 160 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. was personally served upon the petitioner by the Investigating Of- ficer directing him to appear before him on 29. 12. 2000. On the next date, the petitioner sent a letter to S. H. O. , P. S. Kalkaji through has counsel admitting the ser- vice of notice under Section 160 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. , but pleading that he had to leave the town suddenly for about a week. Thereafter he straightway went to Calcutta and by mentioning his residential address of Calcutta, he moved an application for anticipatory bail in the High Court of Calcutta praying for his release on bail under the Section 438 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. She submits that in the said application the pleas on the merits of the case were raised and the prayer was not merely to give protection for moving the Courts at delhi for appropriate relief, but was for release on bail under Section 438 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. . Learned counsel for the State submits that Hon ble Judges of Calcutta High Court vide their orders dated 12/1/2001 passed orders that in case the petitioner was arrested by the police in the aforesaid case, he shall be released on bail by the Arresting Officer for 24 hours only and during that period, the petitioner shall surrender before the con- cerned Magistrate and pray for bail and the Magistrate shall deal with him in accord- ance with Section 81 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. and other relevant provisions of law. and other relevant provisions of law. It was also ordered that if the petitioner failed to surrender within the aforesaid period before the magistrate, it shall be open for the police authorities to arrest him after expiry of 24 hours and deal with him, in accordance with law. It is argued that since the petitioner had submitted to the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court and obtained orders, he was legally bound to comply with those orders. Finding that those orders were not suitable to him, he just ignored those orders and came before Delhi Courts again for grant of anticipatory hail under Section 438 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. , which according to learned counsel, was an utter abuse of the process of law and requires to be discouraged. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel further argues that perusal of the complaint and other material collected by the Investigating Agency clearly suggests that the petitioner in conspiracy with his other co-accused had misrepresented and misled the complainant to do what he would not have done and but for his false statements and misrepresenta- tions, the complainant would not have invested and spent lacs of rupees out of which substantial amount was pocketed by the petitioner and his co-accused. She also sub- mits that the complainant, who unsuspectingly believed the petitioner had been deceived by the petitioner and his co-accused of a very large amount and as such, the petitioner s custodial interrogation may also be required. ( 7 ) THE submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the or- ders of learned Magistrate entrusting the investigations to the police instead of hold- ing an inquiry himself under the provisions of Section 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. may be a subject-matter of scrutiny in appropriate proceedings, but in this petition under Sec- tion 438 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. , the Court is mainly concerned with the question as to whether the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail or not before his arrest in the aforesaid FIR. This Court is of the considered view that once the petitioner had moved the High court of Calcutta under Section 438 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. and had obtained orders, he was under a legal duty to abide by those orders. He had no right to ignore those orders and move delhi Courts again under Section 438 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. praying for some relief on the same grounds. and had obtained orders, he was under a legal duty to abide by those orders. He had no right to ignore those orders and move delhi Courts again under Section 438 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. praying for some relief on the same grounds. The prayer of the petitioner before Calcutta High Court was not for any in- terim protection for moving the Courts at Delhi, but it was for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code in the case registered against him at P. S. Kalkaji. The High Court disposed of his application by directing the Arresting Officer to release the petitioner for 24 hours on bail after his arrest to enable him to appear before the concerned Magistrate, who had to deal with him, in accordance with law. Thus after the said orders of the Calcutta High Court, the petitioner was not entitled to move Delhi Courts again under Sec. 438 of the Code for a similar relief. In case he was not satisfied with the orders of the Calcutta High Court, to ought to have ap- proached the Apex Court for obtaining further orders. The effort of the petitioner to cir- cumvent the orders of Calcutta High Court must be spurned for the reason that none should be allowed to manipulate the process of law. Therefore, on this ground itself, the present petitioner disentitles himself to the reliefs of anticipatory bail from this Court. ( 8 ) THE facts, as disclosed in the FIR and the material collected by the investigat- ing agency prima facie show that the petitioner had dishonestly induced the com- plainant to part with large sums of money, which he would not have done, but for the misrepresentations made by the petitioner. The complainant suffered loss of huge amounts whereas the petitioner and his co-accused gained substantial amount. ( 9 ) THE law is well settled that in a case where the offence is serious, the allega- tions are grave and the accused may be required for custodial interrogation also, the court must not exercise its discretion in favour of grant of anticipatory bail. In State rep. by C. b. I v. Anil Sharma, AIR 1997 SC 3806 , it was clearly held by the Apex Court that considerations for bail are different in the matter of anticipatory bail and cus- todial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented. In State rep. by C. b. I v. Anil Sharma, AIR 1997 SC 3806 , it was clearly held by the Apex Court that considerations for bail are different in the matter of anticipatory bail and cus- todial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented. ( 10 ) THUS the Court is of the considered view that the petition filed by the petitioner is without merit and the petitioner does not deserve to be released on an- ticipatory bail, as prayed. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed. ( 11 ) THE interim protection granted to the petitioner vide orders dt. 14. 02. 2001 stands withdrawn. The orders dt. 12. 01. 2001 passed by Calcutta High Court be complied with.