1. This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicants/accused under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.670/2024, registered at Police Station Kolar Road, District Bhopal (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that present case is purely of a civil nature arising out of a dispute between the parties. The alleged dispute pertains to the period from 11.11.2022 to 02.12.2023, whereas, the FIR was lodged belatedly on 25.08.2024. It is further submitted that, in the FIR, the complainant has alleged that he had no knowledge of his ouster from the partnership firm and the creation of a new partnership firm. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that both parties exchanged legal notices and replies, wherein the complainant was duly informed that he had been removed from the existing partnership firm and that another person had been inducted in his place, resulting in the formation of a new partnership firm.

3. It is further submitted that even if no intimation regarding the creation of the new partnership firm was given to the Registrar of Firms or the concerned authority, the same does not affect the functioning of the partnership firm. It is also submitted that allegation regarding not to sale the flat to Rakumari is incorrect because sale deed of Flat No. 720 has already been executed in her favour. In this regard, an affidavit executed by Rajkumari has been filed.

4. It is further submitted that complainant had invested only Rs.13 lacs in the partnership firm, whereas he has already withdrawn Rs.18 lacs in the form of salary. On the other hand, the applicants have invested more than Rs. 6 crores in the firm. Complainant has filed three civil suits. Out of these, one civil suit has been dismissed by the Court of the 19th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, on 05.12.2022; one suit is pending before the District Legal Services Authority, Bhopal; and another is pending before the 12th Additional District Judge, Bhopal.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the applicants has been making complaints against complainant, Ashish Shrivastava, since 05.10.2021. On the said date, the applicants has submitted an application against Ashish Shrivastava at Kolar Road Police Station. It is also submitted that complainant Ashish Shrivastava, was aware that the applicants had been expelled from the partnership firm on 27.11.2021 and was called upon to execute the dissolution of the partnership deed firm. The complainant issued a notice to the applicants, to which the applicants duly replied. It is further submitted that on 27.11.2021, Ashish Shrivastava filed a civil suit before the District Court, Bhopal, registered as RCA No. 591-A/22. In the plaint, the plaintiff has admitted the receipt of the reply to the notice dated 27.11.2021 and complainant's removal from the partnership firm has been acknowledged.

6. It is submitted that the true facts have already been filed before the Civil Court, and the said suit is presently pending before the Commercial Court at Bhopal. It is also submitted that the first partnership deed was executed on 14.08.2011 between Dilip Bacchani and Ashish Shrivastava, followed by a second partnership deed dated 06.09.2013, a third partnership deed dated 01.12.2021, and a fourth partnership deed dated 01.04.2022 and retirement deed of new partner was also executed on 31.03.2022. It is further submitted that under the provisions of the Partnership Act, registration of a partnership firm is not mandatory. In addition, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the FIR lodged at Collar Road Police Station, Crime No. 670/2024, as well as in another FIR registered by the EOW bearing No.85/2025, no allegation has been made regarding the preparation of a false Gumasta license. The present complaint concerning the preparation of a false Gumasta license was subsequently lodged at M.P. Nagar Police Station. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) of M.P. Nagar Police Station sought a legal opinion from the District Prosecution Officer, and on the basis of that opinion, the I.O. concluded that no offence relating to the preparation of a false Gumasta license is made out. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the EOW case has been registered on false grounds and Coordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. No. 38376 of 2025, has passed an order directing that no coercive action be taken against the applicants.

7. It is further submitted that the applicants have not violated any interim order passed in their favour and has cooperated with the investigation by submitting all relevant documents to the investigating agency. In this regard, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the decision of Apex Court in Pradip N. Sharma Vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in SLP (Crl.) No.354 of 2019 decided on 28.02.2025, Usha Chakraborty & Another Vs. State of West Bengal & Another reported in (2023) 15 SCC 135, Vinod Natesan/Nadeem v. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in Cr.A.No.1593/18 decided on 11.12.2018, Naresh Kumar & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in SLP (Crl.) No. 1570 of 2021 decided on 12.03.2024 and Syed Yaseer Ibrahim v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr reported in Cr.A.No.295 of 2022 decided on 28.02.2022. therefore, no custodial interrogation of the applicants are required and he prays for granting the benefit of anticipatory bail.

8. Learned counsel for the objector, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application and submitted that the complainant lodged a complaint at Police Station Kolar Road, District Bhopal, on 02.12.2023. It is submitted that the applicants are influential persons; therefore, no action was taken on the said complaint initially but when the complainant approached higher authorities, then the FIR was registered in the year 2024. It is further submitted that earlier, Civil Suit No. RCSA 591/2022 was filed for rendition of accounts. There existed a registered partnership firm in which the complainant was also a partner. However, the present applicants fabricated another partnership firm and unlawfully ousted the complainant from the firm.

9. It is further submitted that no intimation regarding the creation of the alleged forged firm was given to the Registrar of Firms or the concerned authority, after creating the said firm. The applicants opened a new bank account in the name of the subsequent firm and utilized funds belonging to the legally registered firm, in which the complainant was also a partner. It is also submitted that after the creation of the new firm, the applicants sold flats and other properties. Some of these flats had been mortgaged to the Bhopal Municipal Corporation and, therefore, could not have been sold; however, the applicants has allegedly sold even those mortgaged flats. It is further contended that in this regard, the Economic Offences Wing has also registered an FIR bearing Crime No. 85/2025. It is submitted that the applicants has forged documents; therefore, the present case is not of a civil nature but involves serious criminal offences.

10. Learned counsel for the objector further submits that for opening a new Bank account in the name of the firm with HDFC Bank, three documents were required, namely: a valid Partnership Deed, a valid Gumasta License, and a valid PAN. It is also submitted that there exists registered partnership firm deed dated 06.09.2013, in which the objector and both the applicants were partners in the firm. However, the applicants unlawfully executed three successive partnership deeds dated 01.12.2021, 31.03.2022 and 01.04.2022. It is further submitted that these partnership deeds were neither registered nor any intimation regarding the aforesaid was given to the Registrar of Firms. The alleged expulsion of the objector by the applicants are illegal; therefore, the said successive partnership deeds are void and not binding upon the firm. It is also submitted that the deed dated 01.04.2022, which was submitted to HDFC Bank, is unauthorized. Further, the initial partnership deed did not contain any expulsion clause.

11. It is further submitted that Gumasta License No.C/239364 is the valid license of the firm, which was valid upto 31.12.2019. However, on 18.02.2019, the Government of Madhya Pradesh amended the Rules and abolished the requirement for renewal of Gumasta Licenses, thereby rendering the said license valid and subsisting. It is further submitted that a Gumasta License is mandatory for opening a current Bank account in the name of a partnership firm. However, instead of submitting the earlier genuine and subsisting Gumasta License, the applicants fabricated a new Gumasta License bearing No. BHOP220604SE00013, which was obtained by them on 07.06.2022. In the said license, the firm has been wrongly represented as a new business, and the date of commencement of business has been falsely shown as 01.06.2022, whereas, this firm was doing business from 14.08.2011.

12. They used Gumasta License as that of the original firm to open a new Bank account with HDFC Bank. It is further submitted that the said Gumasta License was obtained subsequent to the filing of a civil suit for rendition of accounts, which clearly reflects a malafide intention to cheat and defraud the objector. By securing second Gumasta license on the basis of false information, the applicants have misled the Government authorities and circumvented the statutory framework.

13. It is further submitted that the applicants misused the PAN of the original partnership firm, in which both the objector and the applicants are partners, for opening the bank account on 15.06.2022 by furnishing incorrect and misleading information regarding the structure and status of the firm. Furthermore, the applicants falsely declared the firm to be an unregistered entity before HDFC Bank in order to conceal its true status and avoid submitting records from the Registrar of Firms, as is evident from the Account Opening Form. It is further submitted that the applicants have taken contradictory stands regarding the Gumasta License by alleging that the original license expired in 2019, despite the continued validity of Gumasta License No. C/239364, which clearly exposes the falsity of their claims. It is submitted the applicants have prepared a forged second Gumasta License and opened a new Bank account with the intention to obtained all the amount and assets of the firm in which complainant was also partner.

14. It is further submitted that the applicants sold one acre land to Smt. Priya Harpalani on 11.11.2024 and also sold 10 flats to various customers, and the amount obtained from the sale of the said land and flats was deposited in the aforesaid account. Closure report was prepared on 31.12.2025, it was subsequently found that the applicants had prepared forged and fabricated documents by providing incorrect information and had used those documents to open a bank account; therefore, the investigation in the present case was reopened.

15. Learned counsel for the objector, as well as the learned Government Advocate for the State, have further submitted that at the time of lodging the FIR at Collar Road Police Station, the complainant had no knowledge that the applicant had allegedly prepared a false Gumasta license. Upon subsequently, becoming aware of this fact, the complainant lodged a complaint at the concerned police station. It is also submitted that from the letter of the concerned Investigating Officer, it appears that the I.O., on the basis of the opinion of the District Prosecution Officer, expressed his own opinion. Further, it is submitted that information received under the RTI indicates that the Additional Police Commissioner, Bhopal, has stated that the investigation in this regard is still ongoing and that the opinion expressed by the concerned I.O. is not correct. It is also submitted that the I.O. did not conduct any enquiry with the concerned office as to whether the documents and information submitted by the applicants were genuine or not; rather, in order to save the applicants, he merely gave his own opinion, which is not binding.

16. It is further submitted that the Assistant Registrar, Smt. Mangla Purkam, has stated that the Aadhaar Realty firm originally had three partners, namely Dilip Bacchani, Ashish Shrivastava and Harshita Bacchani on behalf of "Aadhaar Realty," an application was submitted in the office in which the names of the three partners Dilip Bacchani, Ashish Shrivastava, and Harshita Bacchani were mentioned, and the firm was registered under Registration No. 01/01/01/00071/14 dated 15.05.2014. However, thereafter, no communication or application regarding any change of partners was submitted to the office, whereas, as per the Partnership Act, 1932, information regarding every amendment to a registered partnership deed is required to be submitted and recorded in the office. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is submitted that in this case, custodial interrogation of the applicants are necessary. It is also submitted that against applicants one case bearing Crime No. 85/2025 has also been registered by the EOW. It is further submitted that the facts of the cases on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the applicants are different from the present case.

17. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case dairy.

18. However, it has come on record that there are allegations that the present applicants and other persons that they prepared a false Gumasta license submitting the false/incorrect information. It is alleged that despite the existence of an earlier Gumasta license, a second Gumasta license was obtained in the name of the same firm by furnishing false information, including a false date of commencement of business and on the basis of that Gumasta License, new Bank account was opened in the name of the firm. There is also one criminal EOW was registered bearing No.85/2025. All these factors raised suspicion, sufficient enough to carry out in depth investigation. Judgments relied upon by learned counsel move in different factual realm and are of no help to the applicants. Possibility of custodial interrogation is not ruled out.

19. Therefore, in cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. Interim protection (interim anticipatory bail) provided by this Court on 12.06.2025 stands recalled.

20. Application sans merits and is hereby dismissed.