Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 17 March, 2026

                                                                  Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010142462025




                                                            2026:GAU-AS:3853

                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                        Case No. : Crl.Pet./761/2025

         PAVNEET GULATI
         R/O HOUSE NO. 330, BLOCK E, RANJIT AVENUE, AMRITSAR, PUNJAB-
         143001.

         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
         REP BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM

         2:OFFICER IN CHARGE/ INVESTIGATING OFFICER
          CID
          PS. ULUBARI
          GUWAHATI
         ASSAM

         3:C I D
         ASSAM
         THROUGH THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
          CID ASSAM
          ULUBARI
          GUWAHATI
         ASSAM

         4:KAMAL SABHARWAL
          DIRECTOR AND AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF SABHARWAL
         TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD. HAVING OFFICE AT 6779 JC-33 SHYAMJI MAL
         LANE
          NABI KARIM PAHARGANJ
          DELHI- 110055.

         5:MOHIT KALRA
          R/O 5 CHERRY LANE
          CHINNAR DRIVE
          DLF CHATTARPUR
                                                                     Page No.# 2/8

             NEW DELHI- 110074.

            6:RAJINDER SHARMA
             R/O E 1/40
            ASHOKE VIHAR
             PHASE-II
             NEW DELHI-110052

Advocates for the petitioner   : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate

                                 Mr. T. Kashyap, Advocate

                                 Mr. K. Ahmed, Advocate

Advocates for the respondents : Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, Advocate



             Linked Case : Crl.Pet./1189/2025

            SHRI KHUSDEEP BANSAL AND ANR
            SON OF SHRI TEJ PAL BANSAL
            R/S-W5/27
            WESTERN AVENUE
            SAINIK FARM
            P.S. NEB SARAI
            DISTRICT- SOUTH DELHI
            NEW DELHI-11006.

            2: SHRI HARISH BANSAL
            SON OF SHRI TEJ PAL BANSAL
             R/S-W10
             C/12
            WESTERN AVENUE
             SAINIK FARM
             P.S. NEB SARAI
             DISTRICT- SOUTH DELHI
             NEW DELHI-11006.

             VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
            ASSAM.

            2:SRI KAMAL SABHARWAL
            SON OF MANHINDER SABHARWAL C/O- M/S SABHARWAL TRADING INDIA
                                                                   Page No.# 3/8

PVT. LTD. AT 6779 JC-33
SHYAMJI MAL LANE
NABI KARIM
PAHAR GANJ
NEW DELHI-110055.
------------

Advocates for the petitioner : Mr. Z Kamar, Sr. Advocate Mr. K Singha, Advocate

Advocate for the respondents : Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, Advocate

:::BEFORE:::

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

Date on which judgment is reserved : 05.03.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 17.03.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : No operative part of the judgment ?

     Whether the full judgment has been            : Yes
     pronounced?


                     JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learner Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.Pet. 761/2025 and Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 -6. Also heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.Pet. 1189/2025 and Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

Page No.# 4/8

2. In the application being Crl.Pet. 761/2025, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.06.2025, passed by the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), in C.R. Case No. 204 C/2025. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction for registration of the FIR by appropriate authority and for a fair investigation.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that an FIR was lodged, stating, inter alia, that an earlier FIR was lodged by STIPL and it's associates, Rajinder Sharma and Mohit Kalra and in pursuance to the same CID P.S. Case No. 16/2023 was registered. It was alleged in the said FIR that the accused persons have lured the informant and other victims to supply and deliver blankets, school bags and mosquito nets. It was also alleged in the said FIR that and MoU was executed between STIPL and Matak Autonomous Council and purchase orders were issued by Matak Autonomous Council in favour of STIPL, valued at Rs.110,50,00,000/- and Rs.31,32,00,000/-. It was alleged that pursuant to the purchase orders, STIPL supplied the required quantity of school bags, blankets and mosquito nets between the period from October, 2022 to December, 2022 to the Matak Autonomous Council. For the said supply Rs.4.4 crores was paid to STIPL and an amount of Rs.59 crores remained to be paid along with Government of Assam stamps. The informant in the instant FIR has tried to bring into the notice of the police that the business between the STIPL and Matak Autonomous Council was a fraud and that they got the FIR Page No.# 5/8

registered at CID, Assam by fabricating the facts. It is also stated that the fraud includes creation of sale of goods only on paper devoid of actual delivery of the goods. But the said FIR was not registered, although prayer was made for registration of the same and to investigate the injustice caused in the entire gamut of the facts.

4. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there cannot not be any question of delivery of the articles as mentioned in the demand orders and to substantiate the facts he has placed the concerned company, i.e., Radha Krishna Enterprises, who deals in jute hessian bags, cannot be considered to have supplied school bags. Likewise, the other company, i.e., Supreme Steel & Udyog, who deals in steel items, cannot be expected to supply school bags and other articles to the Matak Autonomous Council. Similar is the case with Guru Nanak Enterprises, who deals in plastic shoes as well as Himalaya Traders, who deals in soap, organic surf etc. As such, he submits that the FIR which was registered in a CID case, which resulted in charge- sheet and the trial, projected a total incorrect story. To bring into the picture that such a proceeding was wrong, the petitioner preferred the instant FIR, which was again not registered, as stated above. He further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the said criminal case by STIPL and his associates, which was registered as CID P.S. case No. 16/2023. He further submits that the entire case is based on a fabricated narrative only Page No.# 6/8

to shield the actual financial fraud committed by STIPL, as a result of which the petitioner, Sri Harish Bansal and Sri Khushdeep Bansal were arrested on 04.02.2024. However, they were released thereafter. It is also submitted that the vendor suppliers in the alleged transactions are shell entities only to facilitate false billing and GST fraud. On 28.03.2025, the petitioner lodged the FIR before the Special Director General of Police, CID, detailing the said fraud, but the same was not registered. It is also stated that the wife of Sri Harish Bansal, Smt. Mamta Aggarwal had taken steps and complained, but no action has been taken till date. It is, as such, prayed that if the matter is not investigated upon, the fraud will continue and the real facts will never come to light.

5. Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4-6, however, submits that the FIR lodged by the petitioner was only an afterthought and only to delay the proceedings, which was already tried once by Smt. Mamta Aggarwal, wife of Sri Harish Bansal. Whatever story is required to be projected by the petitioner could be projected during the trial of the CID case and an independent FIR after so many years was not required at all, which will do nothing but delay the entire proceedings.

6. It is stated by the learned counsel that the petitioner has introduced the agents of STIPL to the Matak Autonomous Council and on their assurance the STIPL had entered into an MoU with the Matak Autonomous Council and when money was not received from Page No.# 7/8

the same, the STIPL had gone and verified about the actual existence of the Matak Autonomous Council, but could not find any persons in the office and could make out that it was the petitioner along with others who had entered into a conspiracy and cheated the STIPL.

7. In consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels, more so, due to the fact that the erstwhile FIR was lodged by STIPL and the case was instituted and is going on, the present FIR lodged by the petitioner should also be considered for the ends of justice.

8. As such, it is directed that the FIR lodged by the petitioner be registered and to be investigated upon by the police. Further, in the order dated 06.06.2025 it was held that a complaint petition was filed beforehand by Smt. Mamta Aggarwal, wife of Sri Harish Bansal, which was ordered for an enquiry and on the said date, i.e., 06.06.2025, the enquiry was not over and since the petitions were similar, the FIR filed by the petitioner was dismissed. However, it has been stated at the Bar that the complaint filed by Smt. Mamta Aggarwal was dismissed and since there are no similar petition pending, the instant FIR filed by the petitioner may be enquired upon or investigated upon by the concerned police.

9. As far as the Crl.Pet. No. 1189/2025 is concerned, the order challenged therein, i.e., order dated 08.08.2025 by which the Page No.# 8/8

further investigation in connection with CID Police Station Case No. 16/2023 was not allowed and the said prayer was rejected need no interference in view of the order passed in Crl.Pet. No. 761/2025.

10. The criminal petitions stand disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant