Rakesh Sood vs State Of Haryana And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 7634 P&H

CRM-M-15330-2021                                                   -1-



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH.

295


                                                  CRM-M-15330-2021
                                                  Date of Decision: 25.07.2022


RAKESH SOOD                                                     .....PETITIONER


                                         Versus


THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR                                  ...RESPONDENTS


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR


Present:     Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. P.P.Chahar, DAG, Haryana.

             Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate assisted by
             Mr. Paras Talwar, Advocate
             for respondent No. 2.


                         ****

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)

1. To the instant petition cast under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the

petitioner claims relief for FIR No. 54 dated 03.03.2020, embodying

therein, offences constituted under Sections 406/420/467/468/471/120-B

IPC, registered at Police Station Bhondsi, Gurugram, being ordered to be

quashed and set aside. A further relief is claimed in the petition that the

further, judicial proceedings, as arise therefrom, be also ordered to be

1 of 5

quashed and set aside.

2. The complainant company is engaged in providing logistical

support both of keeping warehouses, and, also, for ensuring transportation

of goods, as manufactured, at the manufacturing plant concerned, and,

through a contract drawn amongst the complainant, and, the petitioner

herein, the latter availed the transportation services of the complainant, for

transporting to M/s Maruti Udyog Limited, hence spare parts, and, other

ancillary auto mobile parts, for thers' being assembled at the manufacturing

plant of M/s Maruti Udyog Limited.

3. A dispute arose amongst the accused, and, the respondent with

respect to, despite the auto parts concerned, becoming manufactured at the

manufacturing plant of the accused, and also theirs being transported by the

complainant to M/s Maruti Udyog Limited, and, despite the value of the

transportation charges, or, the freight amount, becoming comprised in a sum

of Rs. 1 crore 50 lakhs, yet the above amount remaining un-liquidated, to

the complainant, by the accused. Contrarily, it is alleged that through the

drawing of fake, and, forged bills, on the letter head of the complainant

company, rather by the accused, besides, by other officials in the entity

concerned, the transport charges, freight charges in respect of the relevant

transportations, as were rather made by the complainant to M/s Maruti

Udyog Limited, rather therethroughs being untenably, and, illegally

claimed. Consequently, the complainant alleged against the accused, that he

had indulged in committing offences of cheating and, also, had indulged in

committing offences of preparing forged, and, false bill, vouchers, for

seeking the apposite releases, which however were never amenable to be

2 of 5

drawn by him, and, nor also the amounts mentioned therein were either

claimable, nor, releaseable to it.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has

vehemently argued, that since the offence of cheating would become

awakened, only when the amounts in the purported forged bills, were

released to the petitioner, and, when the amounts occurring in the purported

forged bills, rather never became released to the accused by M/s Maruti

Udyog Limited, thereupon, the offence of cheating is not made out, nor, the

FIR containing the above offence is truthful rather he contends that it be

quashed, and, set aside.

5. However, even if assuming, and, may be if the offence

constituted under Section 420 of the IPC, is prima facie not at this stage

made out against the present bail petitioner, but a perusal of the report filed,

under Section 173 Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer concerned, before the

learned trial Judge concerned, does on its reading, unfold that, during the

custodial interrogation of co-acused Brij Bhushan, he made a confession

that he, by bringing stamps of company M/S Galaxy Logistics, which entity,

is the complainant entity, and, in collusion with the present petitioner, and,

one Chhatterpal Singh, CEO of the accused company, preparing six forged

bills of the complainant on the laptop, and, assembled desktop computer,

given to him by the company, and, subsequently, the concerned, making

entry in his hands in the register of Trim India company, and, thereafter it

becoming despatched to M/s Maruti Udyog Limited, but, yet it becoming

deleted from the desktop. Therefore, through the above, forged bills created

on the bill vouchers, carrying therein, the label of respondent complainant,

3 of 5

hence became the primary evidence, but yet the above forged bills have

been confessed to become deleted, but yet thereafter the investigating

officer concerned, has added against the accused concerned, an offence

under Section 201 IPC.

5. Consequently, the above unauthorized deletion, or, to screen

evidence, besides the preparation of the forged bills, irrespective of the

offence of cheating, not being committed, does prima facie, at this stage,

constitute an offence of forgery, and, other consequent offences relating

thereto.

6. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner further contends,

that the dispute, as arose from a contract amongst the petitioner company,

and, the respondent complainant company, is a purely civil dispute, and,

that the penal incrimination drawn against the petitioner, is outside the

realm of a plethora of judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court, hence

expositing, that when there are pure civil disputes arising amongst the

concerned, thereupon, the drawing of penal inculpations against the errant,

may not be the appropriate course. However, even the above argument is

rejected, as even if assuming there was, breach if any, of the relevant

contract, as arising from relevant clause, and, relating to pecuniary liabilities

being amenable to be liquidated by the petitioner to the respondent, but

even if, an interpretation thereof, could be made by the civil court

concerned, but here, prima facie the commission of an offence of forgery,

rather in the above manner, does not make it a pure civil suit, but does

prima facie gives it the tinge, and, colour of penal offence(s).

7. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the

4 of 5

petition, and, rather, becomes constrained to dismiss it.

8. Dismissed accordingly.

9. It is clarified that the above made observations are strictly made

only for the disposal of the present petition, and, shall not influence in any

manner, the learned trial Judge concerned, as and when he/she deals with

the trial of the FIR (Supra).

                                                   (SURESHWAR THAKUR)
                                                         JUDGE
25.07.2022
kavneet singh

                Whether speaking/reasoned :              Yes/No
                Whether reportable        :              Yes/No




                                   5 of 5