1 2025:CGHC:51740 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1548 of 2025 Swati Singhal @ Swati Gopal W/o Arpit Singhal Aged About 34 Years R/o 3/77 Sector-3 Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh - 201002 --- Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Sarkanda Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shivesh Kaushik, Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Mr. Amir Abbas and Mr. Sanjay Soni, Advocates. For Respondent/ State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer For Complainant : Ms. Jaspreet Gogia (through Video Conferencing) and Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocates. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16/10/2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.561/2025 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 384, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC). 2 2. Prosecution case in brief, as per the case diary is that the complainant- Shilpi Shrivastava, a resident of Zorapara Sarkanda, Bilaspur, was married to Varun Gopal, son of Manmohan Gopal, in the year 2012. She is currently divorced from her husband. Cases were filed in various Courts regarding her marriage and divorce with her husband and in- laws, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was hearing the case in Delhi. Amit Dewan and Swati Gopal (accused) were distant relatives of her husband who had a good relationship with her. They used to help her in the ongoing case with her husband. Meanwhile, Amit Dewan and Swati Gopal, by taking her and her mother Mrs. Anjula Srivastava under their influence, borrowed a total of Rs.1 Crore in different installments between 2018 and 2021 for their personal needs. Due to good relations with applicant and Amit Dewan, no agreement was done. Later, when they said that they would enter into an agreement regarding the amount of Rs.1 crore borrowed, Amit Dewan and the applicant hesitated to enter into agreement. Meanwhile, Rs.10 lakh was returned by the accused persons through a demand draft. After repeated requests for an agreement, Amit Dewan and applicant signed an MoU with her mother on 23.11.2021, before a Notary at Patiala House Court, Delhi, promising to return the amount within four to five months. The MoU stated that Amit Dewan and applicant had borrowed Rs.01 Crore from her mother for their personal needs, of which Rs.10 Lakhs had been returned, and Rs.90 Lakhs were remaining, which would be returned within four to five months. When Amit Dewan and applicant failed to return the money within the stipulated time, she repeatedly requested, but the accused continued to delay the payment, claiming they had no funds. Amit Dewan and Swati Gopal claimed that they would sell their land situated in Hari Nagar, G-Block, Delhi, and return the money. However, they refused to 3 repay the loan amount. When pressure was put on them to return the money, Amit Dewan and the applicant used to give them cheques in their own name and in the name of their family members, writing the amount and date on those cheques stating that the money was not available at that point of time and that that she may keep the cheques as security and deposit the same in the bank, when the money is available. But when the money did not reach to their bank accounts by the dates mentioned in the cheque, on complaining to Amit Dewan and the applicant, they took back the old cheques and gave a new cheques. In this way, cheques were given to the complainant thrice by the accused persons, but due to non-availability of funds in the accounts, those cheques were never honoured. In June-July 2024, the complainant and her mother approached Amit Dewan and the applicant and demanded the remaining amount of Rs.90 lakh. They were given cheques of Rs.43 lakhs by the applicant Swati Gopal and various cheque of Rs.45 Lakhs by co-accused Amit Gopal and his relatives which were of different bank accounts (in total cheques of value Rs.88 Lakhs) was given by the accused persons and Rs.2 Lakhs was given in cash. When the cheques from these different accounts were presented to the bank for payment, they were denied the payment due to ‘insufficient funds’ the accounts being closed, or the cheques being marked ‘stop for payment’. 3. It is further the case of the complainant that in the meanwhile, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order in favour of the complainant ordering her in-laws to pay the outstanding maintenance amount of Rs.1.25 crore. When her in-laws failed to pay the said amount, she filed a contempt case before the Supreme Court. While the contempt case was pending, a settlement was reached through mediation between her and her in-laws, and a total of Rs. 5.34 crores was agreed upon to settle 4 the ongoing dispute. Due to her in-laws' inability to secure the funds, a deal was made to sell the land located in Hari Nagar G Block, Delhi, to a firm called GMT Building Solutions. Swati Gopal (applicant) and Amit Dewan (the accused persons) also had a share in the aforesaid land, so her in-laws were required to obtain their consent before selling the land. Meanwhile, Amit Dewan and Swati Gopal imposed a condition and began blackmailing the complainant demanding that she should return the original cheques which the accused had given in between June-July 2024, which were dishonored, and that they would give them her Rs. 88 Lakhs from the proceeds received after the sale of the land. Since the complainant was fed up of fighting the case with her in-laws for the last 8-10 years, hence, out of compulsion, she admitted to the conditions imposed and blackmailing of Amit Dewan and Swati Gopal but at the same time, she also made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur through post on 01.03.2025. Subsequently, on 03.03.2025, the complainant returned all the original cheques to GMT Company's lawyer and received a receipt. Subsequently, GMT Company purchased the Harinagar plant, and on 04.03.2025, during the hearing of the contempt case in the Supreme Court, she was issued a demand draft of Rs. 5.34 Crores. Since then, Amit Dewan and Swati Gopal (the accused) have not discussed or taken any initiative to return the remaining amount of Rs. 88 Lakhs to her. In this way, Amit Dewan and Swati Gopal (the accused) took advantage of their acquaintances and fraudulently obtained Rs.1 Crores promising to help her in her cases and also obtained an MoU for the said amount. 4. In sum and substance, the allegation against the applicant is that after obtaining an amount of Rs. 1 Crores from the mother of the complainant, the applicant had given cheques worth Rs.43 Lakhs in the month of 5 June-July 2024 and the co-accused Amit Gopal and his other relatives had given cheques of Rs. 45 Lakhs (total Rs. 88 Lakhs) to the complainant but the same could not be honoured on account of closing of accounts, insufficient funds, stop payments of cheques. The applicant/accused deliberately conspired to forge the cheques and not pay the amount, causing financial hardship and loss to the complainant and her mother. 5. Mr. Shivesh Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is the permanent resident of Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. She is working at Ghaziabad and is having a son aged about 8 years and is also the single bread winner of the family. The FIR is false and fabricated. In fact, the complainant had lodged multiple cases against her in-laws and husband before various Courts. The land situated in Hari Nagar, G-Block, Delhi, was agreed to be sold to GMT Company by all the share holders of the land and the father-in-law of the complainant had 1/6th share in that land but the complainant managed to obtain an order of stay with regard to sale of the said land and she insisted for payment of one time full settlement. The GMT company entered into a tripartite agreement on 31.12.2024 between Shilpi Shrivastava, GMT Company and Manmohan Gopal in which GMT undertakes to pay Rs. 5.34 Crores to the complainant to settle all the disputes going on between the complainant and her in-laws and to close the cases going on in various Courts. Since the family members of the in-laws of the complainant were intending to sell the land for a very long time, they had given certain cheques to the complainant as a security that she may agree to sell the land and if the GMT Company does not gives the money, they would give her Rs. 1 Crore and these cheques have been misused by the complainant and a false case has been made out against 6 the applicant and other co-accused persons. Mr. Kaushik submits that the complainant had returned total 10 cheques as detailed in Annexure A-3 to the counsel for the applicant at which time the counsel for the complainant was also present and she, in her own handwriting had written that neither the complainant nor her mother would pursue any legal action pertaining to those cheques. When the complainant had received demand draft of Rs.5.34 Crores by the GMT Company on behalf of her in-laws before the Apex Court in lieu of one time settlement, then the cheques given as security, was returned back to the counsel for the applicant. However, the complainant alleges that the cheques were obtained by the applicant through coercion and duress when the cheques were handed over by the complainant in presence of her counsel. As such, the entire story is concocted and no element of fraud is involved in this case. On the one hand, the complainant had filed various litigation against her in-laws family and on the other hand, she claimed that she had given a loan amount of Rs. 1 Crores to the applicant who is the first cousin of her father-in-law. On the one hand, the complainant had pleaded before this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 931/2020, that she was financially incapable to engage a counsel and prayed for providing a counsel through Legal Aid and on the other hand, it has been claimed that her mother had given a loan of Rs. 1 Crore to the applicant and in such situation, either one of the statement is false. Mr. Kaushik has drawn attention of the Court to Annexure A/6 which is an FIR lodged by the complainant-Shilpi Shrivastava wherein she had stated that her parents were threatened by her in-laws to give dowry of Rs. 4 Lacs which her mother could not give. Mr. Kaushik submits that he, being the counsel for the GMT Company was also tried to be roped in this case 7 and was issued notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. which was later on stayed by the Apex Court. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Ankita Shukla, learned State counsel submits that the case diary is not available but she opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and the allegations levelled against the applicant are serious in nature involving huge financial crime of Rs. 88 lakhs. 7. Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, learned counsel for the objector submits that the objector is the complainant in present case whose 72 years old widow mother has been cheated and defrauded by the accused to the tune of Rs.88 Lakhs. Hence present FIR No. 561/2025 was registered on 18.4.2025 at Police Station, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, under Section 420, 406, 384, 34, 120-B IPC against accused Swati Gopal Singhal and Amit Dewan residents of Delhi. The accused are guilty of cheating under Section 420 IPC by not returning the loan amount of Rs.88 Lakhs due towards the mother of the complainant. On top of it, Swati Gopal Singhal issued post dated Cheques of the year 2024 drawn on her account held with ICICI Bank which was closed way back in 2020, which demonstrates her fraudulent intent to deceive the payee, which is a serious aggravating factor. 8. Ms. Gogia submits that the complainant was married to Varun Gopal a resident of Delhi in the year 2012. Various cases were pending between the complainant and her husband alongwith in-laws in various courts regarding her marriage. The accused Swati Singhal Gopal and Amit Dewan are distant relatives of the husband of the complainant who had good relationship with the complainant and her mother Smt. Anjula Shrivastava and they used to help the complainant in the ongoing case with her husband and in-laws. Taking advantage of the relation, the said 8 accused by influencing the complainant and her mother Smt. Anjula Shrivastava borrowed a sum of Rs.1 Crore from the mother of the complainant in different installments between the Year 2018 to 2021 for their personal needs. When the mother of the complainant started asking the said accused to return the loan amount of Rs.1 Crore, then Amit Dewan gave 3 Demand Drafts of the amount of Rs.9,40,000/- in total and Rs.60,000/- cash towards part payment of the Loan and for the remaining Rs.90 lakhs, the applicant accused Swati Gopal Singhal gave post dated cheques of Rs.43 Lakhs and Amit Dewan gave post dated cheques of himself and his relatives and in this manner post dated cheques of Rs.88 lakhs in total and Rs.2 Lakhs in cash were given by the accused Swati Singhal and Amit Dewan to the mother of the complainant towards the return of loan Amount of Rs.90 Lakhs. MOU dated 23.11.2021 was executed between Swati Singhal, Amit Dewan and the mother of the complainant Smt. Anjula Shrivastava in which it was agreed that the first party had received a total amount of Rs.1 Crore from the second party for their personal needs and requirements and further it was agreed between the parties that the first party were to repay the entire amount of Rs.90 Lakhs to the second party within a period of 4-5 months and on execution on the said MoU to show their bonafide, the accused paid an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs via three demand drafts and cash of Rs. 60,000/-. 60,000/-. The said demand drafts were encashed in the account of Smt. Anjula Shrivastava, however, the accused kept on delaying the payment of balance of Rs.88 Lakhs and used to exchange the old post dated cheques with the fresh ones with the promise that the said fresh cheques would be encashed on their due date respectively but on nearing the said dates, both the accused used to request the mother of the complainant to give them further time to return the balance 9 amount. In this manner post dated cheques were replaced with fresh cheques thrice between the year 2021 to 2024. Both the accused assured the mother of the complainant that they will repay the entire loan amount once they get the sale proceeds of the Cinema Plot situated at G-Block Hari Nagar, Delhi which has been sold to M/s GMT Building Solutions LLP Vide Agreement to Sell. Ultimately when the cheques given by Swati Singhal and Amit Gopal, were presented in the Bank of the mother of the complainant for encashment, all the said cheques were dishonoured. Not only that, it came into light that the account operated in the name of Swati Gopal Singhal in ICICI Bank, Safdarjung, New Delhi was closed by Swati Gopal Singhal in the month of November, 2020 whereas the cheques were given of the said closed account almost 4 years after its closure which shows that the intention of the applicant alongwith co-accused was to cheat the mother of the complainant since its very inception and they had no intention to return the hard earned money of the widow mother of the complainant. 9. Ms. Gogia further submits that in the meantime the litigation of the complainant with her husband and in-laws came to an end in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 725 of 2024 where all the litigation between the complainant against her husband and in-laws came to an end on payment of one time settlement amount of Rs.5.34 Crores to the complainant and all the proceedings pending between the complainant and her husband and father-in-law were closed/quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 4.3.2025. However, since the matter of return of loan amount of Rs.88 Lakhs by the accused of the present FIR namely Swati Gopal Singhal and Amit Dewan to the mother of the complainant was a separate and distinct transaction, the same was not mentioned in the MoU dated 31.12.2024 executed between the 10 complainant and her father-in-law Manmohan Gopal. When the litigation between the complainant and her in-laws was coming to an end, the accused of the present case very cleverly in connivance with M/s GMT Building Solution LLP who has bought one Plot bearing Khasra No. 835 to 838, Approximately Area of 6000 Square Meters located in Hari Nagar, G-Block, Delhi in which the father-in-law of the complainant and his brothers had 1/6th share each (Swati and Amit Dewan are children of the brothers of the father-in-law of the complainant) and this Company paid Rs.5.34 Crores to the complainant from the share of the father-in- law in the said plot towards full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant towards her husband, the accused of the present FIR Swati and Amit Dewan devised a plan to wriggle out of their promise/ agreement to repay the loan amount of Rs.88 Lakhs to the mother of the complainant and asked the aforesaid GMT Company to extort the cheques of the said accused from the mother of the complainant by threatening to wriggle out of the MoU dated 31.12.2024 entered into between the complainant, her father-in-law Manmohan Gopal and M/s GMT Building Solution LLP. Left with no alternative, the complainant before coming to Delhi to attend the hearing in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, gave complaint dated 01.03.2025 at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur informing that she is going to return the cheques worth Rs.88 Lakhs under pressure, compulsion and coercion. 10. Thereafter, the counsel for the complainant Narender Singh Chandel sent a legal notice dated 30.04.2025 to the partners of M/s GMT Building Solutions LLP asking them to withhold the loan amount of Rs.88 Lakhs alongwith interest 18% taken by Swati Gopal and Amit Dewan from their proportionate share from the sale amount of Khasra No. 836 to 838, Revenue Estate, Tihar Jail Road, Delhi. A threatening reply 11 dated 26.05.2025 was sent by the counsel for M/s GMT Building Solutions LLP, Swati Gopal Singhal and Amit Dewan to the counsel Narender Singh Chandel of the complainant in which the Complainant was threatened to withdraw her legal notice, closure of FIR in question, a written public apology in newspapers and threatening to initiate various proceedings against the complainant and threatened the complainant as well as her Advocate to send the reply to the Bar Council of India. The Police of Police Station, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, sent notice to both the accused twice to join the investigation but none of the accused joined the investigation instead filed an anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Court, however, vide order dated 15.9.2025 the learned Additional . Sessions Judge, Bilaspur has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant. 11. Ms. Gogia further submits that M/s GMT Building Solution LLP filed a mischievous and misleading Contempt Petition (C) No. 621 of 2025 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the said petition the said Company tried to make the transaction between the accused of the present FIR and Smt. Anjula Shrivastava mother of the Complainant part of the MoU dated 31.12.2024 executed between the Complainant, her father-in-law and M/s GMT Building Solution LLP. However, vide order dated 2.9.2025 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the said Contempt Petition on merits. At this stage, the investigation is at its nascent stage and material evidence including the cheques in question are required to be seized by the police from the accused, therefore at this stage, the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant deserves to be dismissed. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused materials available on record. 12 13. It is not in dispute that there were number of litigation going on between the complainant and her in-laws which has finally culminated into a one time settlement by paying Rs. 5.34 Crores by M/s. GMT Company, on behalf of her in-laws. 14. Prima facie, the dispute arises out of a monetary transaction between the parties involving alleged non-return of a loan and dishonour of cheques. Such transactions, supported by an MoU and cheques, have a clear civil flavour, and the criminality, if any, can be adjudicated during trial. Further, there is no requirement of any custodial interrogation as the evidence that is required to be collected are documentary in nature such as MoU, cheques, bank records etc. and no recovery or discovery from the applicant is shown to be necessary. Therefore, custodial interrogation is not required for effective investigation. Moreover, the applicant is a permanent resident of Ghaziabad, and is a woman, aged about 34 years having a son aged about 8 years and is stated to be the sole bread winner of the family working in a firm namely, Motherson Technology Services Ltd. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of the co-accused Amit Gopal. As the investigation can proceed with cooperation from the applicant without custodial arrest, anticipatory bail to the applicant serves the ends of justice. Hence, without further commenting anything on merits, this Court find it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 15. Accordingly, the instant MCRC(A) is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant – Swati Singhal @ Swati Gopal, on executing a personal bond with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, she shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) She shall not directly or indirectly make any 13 inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) She shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) She shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of their adhaar card alongwith a colored postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) She shall not involve herself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Vaibhav / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.10.17 11:31:41 +0530