1 2025:CGHC:58434 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1877 of 2025 Amit Dewan S/o Ramesh Gopal Dewan Aged About 48 Years R/o 2988, Galli Rai Bahadur, Shiv Sahai Mal, Ballimaran, Delhi G.P.O. North Delhi-110006 ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause Title Taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Shivesh Kaushik, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer For Complainant / Objector : Ms. Jaspreet Gogia and Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocates. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02/12/2025 1. This second anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’) has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his 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. The first bail application being M.Cr.C. No. 1727/2025 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.11.2025 on the ground of maintainability with liberty to approach the trial Court concerned for decision on merits. VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.12.03 17:22:15 +0530 2 3. Prosecution case in brief, as per the case diary is that the complainant- Shilpi Shrivastava, resident of Jorapara 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. The applicant- Amit Dewan and co-accused Swati Gopal 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, the applicant and co- accused-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 co-accused Swati Gopal and applicant-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, the applicant and the co-accused 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, applicant-Amit Dewan and co-accused Swati Gopal 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 applicant-Amit Dewan and co-accused Swati Gopal had borrowed Rs.1 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 the applicant-Amit Dewan and co-accused Swati Gopal failed to return the money within the stipulated time, the complainant repeatedly requested, but the accused persons continued to delay the payment, claiming they had no funds. Applicant- 3 Amit Dewan and co-accused Swati Gopal claimed that they would sell their land situated in Hari Nagar, G-Block, Delhi, and return the money. However, they refused to repay the loan amount. When pressure was put on them to return the money, Applicant-Amit Dewan and the co-accused Swati Gopal 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 the applicant-Amit Dewan and the co-accused, they took back the old cheques and gave new post dated 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 applicant-Amit Dewan and the co-accused Swati Gopal and demanded the remaining amount of Rs.90 lakh. They were given cheques of Rs.43 lakhs by the co-accused Swati Gopal and various cheque of Rs.45 Lakhs by applicant-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 ‘insufÏcient funds’ the accounts being closed, or the cheques being marked ‘stop for payment’. 4. 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 4 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 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. Co-accused Swati Gopal and the applicant-Amit Dewan also had a share in the aforesaid land, so her in- laws were required to obtain their consent before selling the land. Meanwhile, the applicant-Amit Dewan and co-accused Swati Gopal imposed a condition and began blackmailing the complainant demanding that she should return the original cheques which they 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 Applicant-Amit Dewan and co-accused 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, the applicant-Amit Dewan and co-accused Swati Gopal have not discussed or taken any initiative to return the remaining amount of Rs. 88 Lakhs to her. In this way, the applicant-Amit Dewan and co-accused Swati Gopal took advantage of their acquaintances and fraudulently obtained Rs.1 5 Crores promising to help her in her cases and also obtained an MoU for the said amount. 5. 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 co-accused Swati Gopal had given cheques worth Rs.43 Lakhs in the month of June-July 2024 and the applicant-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, insufÏcient 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. 6. Mr. Shivesh Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. At the outset, he submits that the co-accused Swati Gopal @ Swati Singhal has been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court in M.Cr.C. No. 1548/2025 vide order dated 16.10.2025 and the applicant may also be granted anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. The allegation of coercion or duress does not hold any merit since the complainant returned the alleged cheques of her own volition and that too, in presence of her own Advocate. The complainant in her own handwriting undertook to not pursue any legal action against the alleged cheques. Furthermore, not only did the complainant afÏx her signature but her Advocate attested to it, which reiterates the fact that there could not have been any coercion. In the FIR No. 594/2017 lodged at P.S. Sarkanda, Bilaspur, the complainant herself states that she and her mother were unable to arrange mere Rs. 4 lakhs for dowry. This directly contradicts the complainant's later claim of having given Rs.1 crore as loan to the 6 applicant's family. The alleged transaction, as admitted by the complainant, pertains to a purely private loan. There was no entrustment of any property for any specific purpose, which is the foundational requirement for invoking Section 406 IPC. Therefore, the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust are wholly absent in the instant case. Furthermore, it is pertinent that the complainant had issued civil legal notices to the applicant prior to the registration of the FIR, and yet another civil notice was issued even after the filing of the FIR. The issuance of these notices both before and after criminal proceedings clearly demonstrates that the dispute is intrinsically civil, but has been given a criminal colour to exert undue pressure upon the applicant. The facts of the present case stand on an even stronger footing, as the complainant's own conduct by repeatedly issuing civil notices afÏrms that the alleged dispute is civil in nature. The essential ingredients of cheating dishonest inducement at the inception of the transaction and subsequent wrongful loss are entirely absent. The cheques were voluntarily returned, and the complainant received a substantial sum of Rs. 5.34 crores through a court-sanctioned settlement, a fact which conclusively establishes that she suffered no wrongful loss. The applicant never made any specific threat of bodily harm or damage to reputation against the complainant. In fact, the complainant herself admits in the FIR that it was the Advocate who had asked her to return the cheques. The applicant's Advocate merely facilitated an amicable settlement, pursuant to which the complainant received an amount of Rs. 5.34 crores in exchange for returning the alleged cheques. Said settlement was duly recorded in the Hon'ble Court's order dated 04.03.2025, placing reliance upon the MoU dated 31.12.2024. This is further substantiated by the fact that the complainant, despite alleging blackmail, appeared before the Hon'ble 7 Supreme Court and afÏrmed under oath that the settlement was made voluntarily, out of her own free will and volition, and without any force, threat or coercion. The complaint is a clear attempt to convert a civil transaction into a criminal matter, a practice that has been repeatedly condemned by the Courts. Even if all the alleged allegations are taken true on the face of it, then every transaction ranging from alleged giving out of loan to alleged signing of the loan agreement to the voluntary return of the cheque, all happened within Delhi, but the FIR has been filed in a remote jurisdiction as a tool of harassment against the applicant and the co-accused, who is a woman and a resident of Ghaziabad and has no substantial nexus to the place where the FIR was filed. The applicant is a law-abiding citizen, a responsible family man and a gainfully employed professional. He is a franchise partner of reputed multinational brands and operates his legitimate business from shops located at New Delhi. The complainant's own documents submitted in earlier court proceedings, such as the order dated 14.01.2021 of this High Court (Annexure A-7) and the order dated 26.07.2021 of the Supreme Court (Annexure A-9), show that the complainant repeatedly pleaded financial inability. Furthermore, in FIR No. 594/2017 (Annexure-8), she had stated she was unable to arrange a mere Rs.4 lakhs for dowry, which while inherently illegal, goes to show the extents of the Complainant's financial destitution, which stands against her alleged ability to pay Rs. 1 Crore as a loan to the applicant herein and other co-accused. 7. Mr. Kaushik further submits that the applicant has a spotless record and has not absconded, is ready and willing to comply with all conditions imposed by this Hon'ble Court. To deny bail on mere bald allegations, without any evidence of her being a flight risk or a threat to the investigation, is an egregious violation of her fundamental rights. All the 8 incidents mentioned in the FIR admittedly took place within the territorial limits of New Delhi, and no part of the alleged cause of action arose in Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Despite this, the FIR has been wrongfully registered at Bilaspur, which has no territorial jurisdiction to investigate or try the present matter. The continuation of proceedings at Bilaspur would therefore be without authority of law and violative of Section 177-179 Cr.P.C., which mandate that an offence must be investigated and tried only by a Court having jurisdiction over the place of occurrence. Hence, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail. 8. In addition to the above, Mr. Kaushik submits that the complainant had lodged multiple cases against the applicant and the co-accused. 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 the applicant and other co-accused persons. Mr. Kaushik submits that the complainant had returned total 10 cheques to the 9 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 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 submits that he, being the counsel for the GMT Company was also tried to be roped in this case and was issued notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. which was later on stayed by the Apex Court. Mr. Kaushik lastly submits that in view of the above facts situation of the case, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Verma, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent pposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stating that the allegations levelled against the applicant are serious in nature involving huge financial crime of Rs. 88 lakhs. 10.Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, learned counsel for the objector submits that the objector is the complainant in present case whose 72 years old widow 10 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 co-accused Swati Gopal Singhal and the applicant-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. 11.Ms. Gogia submits that the applicant has failed to join investigation despite four notices sent by the Police under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. and hence has not cooperated with the investigation due to which inspite of lapse of 7 months, the investigation has not moved even an inch. The case property i.e. the cheques in question are yet to be recovered by the Police. In his bail application filed before the Additional Sessions Judge Bilaspur, the applicant stated that the cheques in question are with the authorities, whereas M/s GMT Solutions LLP has, in their letter addressed to the Investigating OfÏcer in the present FIR, informed that the cheques in question have been destroyed by their Advocate on instructions of the accused. Hence, after this Hon'ble Court granted bail to co-accused Swati Gopal vide order dated 16.10.2025, the accused have destroyed the case property in the present FIR. Hence, on this ground alone the accused is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail as he has already tampered with the evidence. The applicant in connivance with M/s GMT Solutions LLP is hell bent upon to harass the victim who is 72 years old widow and has been robbed off her hard earned money by the accused of the present FIR and the aforesaid Company is supporting them which is evident from the reply dated 26.5.2025 (Annexure R/3) sent by the common Advocate of the accused of the present FIR and the said Company to the legal notice dated 11 30.4.2025 sent by the Advocate of the Complainant. A perusal of the said reply to the legal notice shows the threats extended to the complainant, victim mother as well their Advocate Mr. Narendra Singh Chandel in which they have been threatened to initiate criminal proceedings against them, withdraw the FIR, demand of Rs.25.00 Lakhs etc. besides sending the communication to the Bar Council of India, thus, threatening the Advocate of the Complainant. The accused has destroyed the case property of the present FIR i.e. the cheques in question, hence custodial interrogation of the applicant is utmost required to know when and in what circumstances the said cheques were destroyed and by whom. This Hon'ble Court has granted anticipatory bail to co-accused Swati Singhal @ Swati Gopal vide order dated 16.10.2025 while observing in paragraph 14 that the co-accused is a woman aged 34 years and having a son aged about 8 years and there is no requirement of custodial interrogation as the evidence that is required to be collected are documentary in nature such as MoU, cheques, bank records, etc. however, this Hon'ble Court specifically observed the case of the Applicant is distinguishable from that of applicant Amit Gopal. Hence, it is clear from above facts that after the co-accused was granted anticipatory bail by this Hon'ble Court, for the first time since the registration of FIR, it is stated by the above Company that cheques are destroyed as it was never mentioned in the various petitions filed before different Courts of law either by any of the accused or the said Company that the cheques stand destroyed. Thus it is ex-facie clear that case property of the present FIR has been destroyed by the accused in active connivance with the Company in order to avoid custodial interrogation and to defeat the recovery of remaining loan amount of Rs.88.00 lakhs and hence the applicant accused is not entitled to benefit of anticipatory bail on this 12 ground also. In this manner, the accused persons are committing crime one after the other without any fear of the Courts of law. 12.Ms. Gogia further submits that the applicant is guilty of suppression of material facts before Courts of law. Firstly, the applicant filed petition for Transit Bail before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi being Bail Application No. 3314 of 2025. Vide order dated 29.8.2025 the High Court was pleased to stay the arrest of the applicant and directed him to join investigation as and when directed in writing by the IO. However the applicant refused to accept the written notice 09.10.2025 by the Bilaspur Police and hence the said notice was pasted outside his shop. The applicant violated the condition of interim bail granted to him by the High Court. After obtaining interim relief from Delhi High Court in Transit Bail application, the applicant filed anticipatory bail application bearing No. 1922/2025 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur without mentioning the fact of filing of Transit Anticipatory Bail before the High Court of Delhi and order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the High Court of Delhi. However, the said fact was brought into the notice of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur by the Counsel for the complainant during the arguments. Hence, vide order dated 15.09.2025 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur dismissed the anticipatory bail of the applicant not on merits but by observing that since Transit Bail Application No. 3314/2025 filed by the applicant is pending before the Delhi High Court, hence the anticipatory bail was dismissed without considering it on merits. Vide order dated 27.10.2025 the High Court of Delhi disposed off the Transit Anticipatory Bail of the applicant while observing that since the applicant has already approached the concerned Court by filing an anticipatory bail application, no merit is left for the Transit Bail and gave liberty to the applicant to apply afresh for 13 anticipatory bail in accordance with law. The applicant-accused instead of moving bail application before the learned Trial Court, filed MCRC(A) No. 1727 of 2025 for grant of anticipatory bail before this Hon'ble Court. Vide order dated 07.11.2025, this Hon'ble Court dismissed the said bail application with liberty to the applicant to approach the learned Trial Court to get the matter decided on merits and thereafter move a fresh application for grant of anticipatory bail before this Hon'ble Court. Thereafter, the applicant-Accused filed application for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bilaspur. Vide order dated 17.11.2025 the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bilaspur dismissed the anticipatory bail of the applicant while holding that the applicant has embezzled Rs. 88 Lakhs and since the accused is resident of State of Delhi and he has intentionally remained absent in response to the notices sent to join investigation, thereby the accused has not co-operated with the investigation. 13.Ms. Gogia next submits that proxy litigation is being done on behalf of the applicant by M/s GMT Building Solution LLP who is neither complainant nor accused in the present FIR as on today and the said Company has filed a quashing petition before the High Court of Delhi being W.P (Crl) 2929/2025 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.11.2025 in view of the submissions of the complainant made in her counter afÏdavit. To the utmost shock of the complainant, her counsel was served with a copy of status report by the Bilaspur Police on the date of hearing in the said quashing petition in which it is mentioned that cheques in question which is the primary case property in the present FIR, are stated to be destroyed by Shivesh Kaushik, counsel for above mentioned Company. Hence, in view of the above modus operandi adopted by the applicant by forming a gang to 14 destroy the evidence, the complainant strongly apprehends that the applicant may even tamper with the MoU dated 23.11.2021 in order to defeat the cause of the victim. 14.In addition to the above, Ms. Gogia submits that the complainant was married to Varun Gopal resident of Delhi in the Year 2012. Various cases were pending between the complainant and her husband along with in- laws in various Courts regarding her marriage. The co-accused Swati Singhal Gopal and applicant Amit Dewan are distant relatives 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 cases/ litigation with her husband and in-laws. Taking advantage of the relation, the said 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 installment between the Year 2018 to 2021 for their personal needs. To win the confidence and trust of the victim mother of the complainant, the applicant Amit Dewan engaged his relative, Mr. Ashok Gurnani. Advocate to represent the complainant in the case filed by the in-laws of the complainant in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. When the mother of the complainant, Smt. Anjula Shrivastava, the victim, started asking the said accused to return the loan amount of Rs. 1 Crore, then applicant Amit Dewan gave 3 Demand Drafts of the amount of Rs.9,40,000 in total and Rs.60,000/cash and for the remaining Rs. 90 lakhs, the co-accused Swati Gopal Singhal gave post dated cheques of Rs.45 Lakhs and applicant 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 co-accused Swati and applicant Amit Dewan to the victim towards the return of loan amount of 15 Rs.90 Lakhs. MoU dated 23.11.2021 was executed between Swati Singhal, Applicant Amit Dewan and the victim 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 the execution on the said MoU to show their bona fide towards part payment, the applicant Amit Dewan paid an amount of Rs.10 lakhs via 3 Demand Drafts and cash of Rs.60,000/-. The above 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 shall be encashed on their due date respectively but on nearing the said dates, both the accused used to request the victim to give them further time to return the balance amount in this manner post dated cheques were replaced with fresh cheques thrice between the Year 2021 to 2024. Ultimately when the cheques given by co-accused Swati Gopal and applicant Amit Dewan in the present case were presented in the Bank of the victim for encashment, all the said cheques were dishonoured. Not only that it came into light that the account operated in the name of co-accused Swati Gopal Singhal in ICICI Bank, Safdarjung, New Delhi was closed by her 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 accused was to cheat the victim since its very inception and they had no intention to return the hard earned money of the victim. Now the said cheques stand destroyed by 16 the accused which further aggravate the offence committed by the accused. 15.Ms. Gogia next 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 applicant-Amit Dewan to the mother of the complainant was a separate and distinct transaction, the same was not mentioned in MoU dated 31.12.2024 executed between the 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 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 (co-accused Swati Gopal and applicant- 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 of the said plot towards full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant towards her husband, the co- accused of the present FIR Swati Gopal and applicant 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 17 the aforesaid GMT Company to extort the hceques 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. It is clear from the fact that neither any of the two accused of the present FIR nor the victim Smt. Anjula Shrivastava are signatory to the said MoU dated 31.12.2024. Left with no alternative, the complainant before coming to Delhi to attend the hearing in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, gave complaint dated 1.3.2025 at Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur informing that she is going to return the cheques worth Rs.88 lakhs under pressure, compulsion and coercion. 16.Ms. Gogia 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. Vide order dated 2.9.2025 the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to dismissed the said Contempt Petition on merits. Hence, the subject matter of the present FIR is entirely separate from the MoU dated 31.12.2024 which already stands adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is evident from the fact that neither the victim Smt. Anjula Srivasatava nor the accused of the present FIR are parties to the said MoU dated 31.12.2024 and by unnecessarily mixing up the dispute of the present FIR with the proceedings concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is sheer abuse by the accused and they are liable for perjury for making false statements before the Hon'ble Courts. It was wrongly and mischievously argued and 18 mentioned in the bail applications of the accused filed before the learned Sessions Court as well as in the bail application of co-accused filed in this Hon'ble Court being MCRC(A) No 1548 of 2025 that the victim who is the mother of the complainant in the present FIR had no sources to lend loan of Rs 1 Crore to the accused as the complainant used to engage legal aid lawyers during her litigation with her in-laws. The victim advanced loan of Rs. 1 Crore in total during the period 2018 to 2021 in the form of cash and ancestral jewellery inherited by the victim from her parents and in laws. The litigation of the complainant with her in-laws started in the year 2014 and she had been engaging private lawyers/ Senior Advocates to contest her cases before various Courts of law up to three rounds of litigation in the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as two rounds of Western Australian Court of Perth. It is only in January 2021 in the bail application of her in-laws filed in this Hon'ble Court that the complainant engaged Advocate from Legal Aid. Her counsel in the Hon'ble Supreme Court was appointed as Amicus Curiae by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in August 2021. In this manner after the victim i.e. the mother of the complainant, was defrauded and robbed of her entire money from 2018 to 2021 and since money was exhausted, the complainant was forced by the circumstances to take services of Legal Aid Advocate in 2021 in this Hon'ble Court. It is also time and again alleged by the accused that the complainant had lodged FIR No. 594/2017 on allegation of dowry demand of Rs 4 Lacs by the husband of the complainant and the complainant and her mother had expressed their incapacity to pay the said amount and, in that situation, how the mother of the complainant gave loan of Rs. 1 Crore to the accused. The mother of the complainant refused to give the aforesaid amount to the husband of the complainant as she was against giving dowry and not because of 19 her financial incapability. It is pertinent to mention here that both the accused in the present case are at present financially strong having Rs.18.00 Crores each share out of Rs. 100 crores property deal of WZ- 296, G Block, Hari Nagar, New Delhi with respect to which the accused along with their co-sharers entered into agreement to sell with M/s GMT Solutions LLP. The said property transaction has already progressed to an advanced stage including receipt of earnest money which clearly establishes the financial capacity of both the accused to repay the balance loan amount of Rs 88.00 Lakhs to the victim in the present FIR. Even at the time of executing MoU dated 23.11.2021, both the accused had given the cheques in anticipation to the victim with the promise that they will return the loan amount to her once sale deed of the aforesaid property is executed but instead of repaying the loan amount even after receiving the earnest money, the accused has not only faulted in that but fraudulently extorted the aforesaid cheques back from the victim in the circumstances detailed above. This shows wilful default showing clear mens rea of offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The present case involves fraud, cheating and embezzlement by applicant Amit Dewan to the tune of Rs. 1.00 Crore which is proved by the conduct of the accused himself who has made part payment of Rs. 12.00 Lakhs thus accepting his liability. 17.Ms. Gogia lastly further submits that at this stage, the investigation is going on and material evidence are required to be seized by the Police from the accused, therefore at this stage, the bail application filed by the accused for grant of Anticipatory Bail deserves to be dismissed. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 20 19. From perusal of the FIR, it is evident that the complainant in this case is the daughter of the victim namely Smt. Shilpi Shrivastava who had advanced loan to the tune of Rs. 1 Crores to the accused persons, namely Swati Gopal @ Swati Singhal and the applicant-Amit Gopal who are her relatives. Only a small portion of the loan amount i.e. Rs. 12 Lacs have been returned to the complainant by the applicant by way of demand draft and cash. As per the allegation levelled against the applicant by the complainant, the applicant and the co-accused issued various post dated cheques for repayment of the outstanding loan amount of Rs. 88 lacs on three occasions and ultimately, when the cheques were presented, they stood dishonoured on account of insufÏciency of funds or issuance of cheques of the bank accounts which were closed at a very earlier point of time. 20. It further transpires from the objection filed by the complainant that the cheques issued by the applicant, which could have been the part of evidence, have been destroyed by the accused persons. Even the applicant has tried to avoid joining the investigation despite being called by the Investigating OfÏcer of the Sarkanda Police Station, Bilaspur. The applicant has further suppressed material fact before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur with respect to filing of transit anticipatory bail application before the Delhi High Court. The applicant is a resident of Delhi and the possibility of his fleeing after grant of anticipatory bail, cannot be ruled out at this stage as he has not joined the investigation despite being called by the Investigating OfÏcer thrice. Though, this Court, vide order dated 16.10.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.(A) No. 15348/2025, has allowed the anticipatory bail application of the co- accused Swati Singhal @ Swati Gopal on the ground that she is a lady aged about 34 years and is having a son aged about 8 years and was 21 stated to be the sole bread winner of the family working in a private firm, the case of the applicant is distinguishable and as such, this Court is of the opinion that the present anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant deserves to be and is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Vaibhav / Amit