The Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case Geeta Kashyap v. State of Himachal Pradesh (and connected matter) observed and has reiterated that the bail proceedings should not be utilized as a means for recovery in monetary disputes.
The curt in the case was dealing with the issue of recovering money is a civil matter and should be addressed through appropriate legal channels, and not in criminal proceedings.
The bench headed by Justice Rakesh Kainthla in the case observed and has allowed the bail applications of accused or petitioners.
The court in the case observed that the bail proceedings cannot be used to recover the amount advanced by the informant. Thus, it is appeared from the status report that the informant had invested the money in gold through Geeta but he has projected a different version that he had advanced the money as a help to Geeta and if the money was advanced as a help and is not being returned, it will give rise to civil liability and not criminal liability.
In the present case, the informant accused the petitioners of luring him into opening a gold shop, failing to supply the agreed gold, and not returning the invested money.
It has been asserted by him before the court that he had provided financial assistance to petitioner-Geeta after her house collapsed in a landslide.
However, instead of returning the money, she invested it in gold.
The bench of Justice Kainthla, after carefully examining the allegations, highlighted that the money was extended as help and not entrusted to the accused. Thus, it was stressed that no case of inducement or delivery of property based on inducement had been established at this stage, and thus, the offence of cheating as stated under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, IPC was not prima facie made out against the petitioners.
The court noted that the informant and the State were primarily focused on recovering the money through the bail proceedings.
The bench also referred to the case Ramesh Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi, wherein the court stated that the criminal proceedings are not meant for realization of disputed dues.
The court in the case observed and has allowed the bail applications, making the interim bail orders absolute until the disposal of the case.
The court directed the petitioner to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by the court.
The counsel, Advocates Vinod Chauhan and Pawan Gautam appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, Deputy Advocate General RP Singh represented the respondent.