Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ashok Kumar Sahni vs State Of Haryana And Another on 10 May, 2024

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065371




CRM-M-36015-2023                                                 -1-


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH
                                   CRM-M-36015-2023
                            Date of decision : 10.05.2024
ASHOK KUMAR SAHNI
                                             ... Petitioner
                                   Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
                                                            ...Respondent
                                                      CRM-M-44766-2023

SUPRIYA NAKRA
                                                              ... Petitioner
                                   Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
                                                            ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:     Mr. Keshavam Chaudhari, Advocate,
             for the petitioner(s).

             Mr. Rupinder Singh Jhand, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

          Mr. Gurmandeep Singh Sullar, Advocate with
          Ms. Devaki Anand Sullar, Advocate
          for respondent No.2-complainant.
                 ****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing No.CRM-

M-36015-2023 titled as Ashok Kumar Sahni Versus State of Haryana

and CRM-M-44766-2023 titled as Supriya Nakra Versus State of

Haryana as the same are arising out of the same FIR. However, for the

sake of convenience the facts have been taken from CRM-M-23736-

2023.

2. The prayer in the present petitions under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C. is for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in case FIR

1 of 16

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065371

No.49 dated 01.03.2023 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468,

471, 506, 120B IPC at Police Station Industrial Area, Bhiwani.

3. The present FIR came to be registered on the complaint of

Naresh Kumar Ahuja son of Pannu Ram Ahuja with the allegations that

entities controlled by him and his wife had paid a sum of Rs.2.02 crores

to M/s MDM Televentures Pvt. Ltd. Gurugram for supply of mobile

phone accessories but the same had not been supplied thereby

committing the offences in question. The copy of the complaint leading

to the registration of the FIR is as under:-

"To The Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani.

Subject : Complaint seeking registration of case F.I.R. and legal action against 1. Pardeepto Gaungly 9830954544, 8766228966, 9315133916, 9831034344 2. Monish Mittal Mob. 8278857314 3. Deepak Nakra Mob. 8800008088 4. Silka Saloni Biswal 9903090102 5. Ashok Kumar Sahni C/o M.D.M. Televentures Pvt. Ltd (CIN-U 51909HR 2019PTC079047), 416, 4 F, Fourth Floor, ILD Trade Centre, Sector 47, Guguram, Haryana 122018. Sir, It is submitted that I, Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Punnu Ram Ahuja am resident of Bajrang Bali Colony, Rohtak Gate, Bhiwani. I have been running whole sale trading business in the name and style 'Ahuja Enterprises' at Bajrang Bali Colony, Rohtak Gate, Bhiwani and am Proprietor of Ahuja Enterprises. Apart from this, I run whole sale trading and Distribution business in the name of another firm at Shop No. 2 Bajrang Bali Colony, Rohtak Gate, Bhiwani, in the

2 of 16

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065371

name of Vaishno Distributions and the Proprietor of our Firm Vaishno Distributions, is none other than my wife Smt. Neelam Rani. The business of our both the Firms is run under the supervision and management of mine and my son Tanuj Ahuja. M.D.M. Televentures Pvt. Ltd. Guguram, Haryana 122018 run whole sale business of REALME MOBILE PHONES ACCESSORIES and the aforesaid accused persons of M.D.M. Televentures Pvt. Ltd, Guguram, were the authorized Distributors/sales agent of entire Haryana State of REALME MOBILE PHONES ACCESSORIES. For about last two years, for the business of my aforesaid both the Firms, I had been purchasing REALME MOBILE PHONES ACCESSORIES on wholesale basis against the advance payment from the above said accused persons, I for purchasing REALME MOBILE PHONES ACCESSORIES on whole sale; at the instance of the accused persons, time to time, by way of RTGS on various dates till 24.11.2022 had been depositing money in the account of M.D.M. Televentures Pvt. Ltd. maintained with State Bank of India, Gurugram, Standard Charted Bank, Gurugram and at last on 24.11.2022, I at the instance of the accused; for purchase of the goods, by way of RTGS had transferred/deposited Rs. 77,00,000/- from our Firms Vaishno Distributions' Axis Bank Account in M.D.M. Televentures Pvt. Ltd's Standard Charted Bank, Gurugram Account. Apart from this, at the instance of the accused persons, for purchase of the goods, on 24.11.2022 from our other Firm Ahuja Enterprises' Axis Bank Account had deposited Rs. 17-17 lacs i.e. total Rs. 34,00,000/- in M.D.M. Televentures Pvt. Ltd's Standard Charted Bank, Gurugram Account. On 24.11.2022, after depositing the above said amount, the

3 of 16

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065371

accused persons, despite my repeated requests, e.mails, telephonic requests and visiting them time and again personally and making my repeated requests; the stock of REALME MOBILE PHONES was not supplied to us; whereupon I settled the accounts on 7.1.2023 of the advance amount deposited with the accused persons and found that our firm Vaishno Distributors' Rs. 1,62,64,586.10 and of our firm Ahuja Enterprises Rs.39,71,296.75 i.e. total Rs.2,02,35,882.67 are deposited with the accused persons as advance money. In that regard, copy of email statement dated 7.1.2023 is enclosed herewith. I have made requests time and again personally, by making phone calls and by way of e.mails to the accused persons that either the accused as per our demand should supply the REALME MOBILE PHONES accessories to us or should return our Rs. 2,02,35,882.67 to us but the accused earlier had been making excuses on one pretext or the other and the accused out of our advance money deposited; in lieu of some money, had given us Maruti Eco Commercial loading car Registration no. HR 55AJ 7609 with value of Rs. 2,00,000/- to me and the accused had assured to get this car transferred in our name at the earliest but the accused persons have not get transferred the said car in our name till date; and not the accused have flatly refused to supply us the goods and to return our aforesaid amount; rather extended threat that if we talk about the money even then me and my son Tarun Ahuja would have to face dire consequences and would get me eliminated. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused persons with their bad intention not to return our aforesaid amount and with an intention to avoid their liability of State Bank of India, Gurugram; they got registered fake and

4 of 16

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065371

false report within their Company Account no. 40469785077 of State Bank of India, Gurugram to the effect that the amount of Rs. 36,00,000/- are due to them from our Vaishno Distributors; whereupon the State Bank of India, Gurugram having sent us a notice/letter dated 20.1.2023 had directed that as to what amount of accused persons and their company is due from us; we should deposit the above said amount in the aforesaid account of the above company of the accused notwithstanding that even a single penny is due from us to the accused/their company/Firm from our Firm rather our aforesaid amount is due to us from the accused persons and their Firm and we are in possession of confession mail thereof. As such, the accused persons aforesaid having connived amongst themselves and hatching a conspiracy; having committed cheating, forgery and breach of trust have usurped our Rs. 2,02,35,882.67 and the accused having refused to return our said money have committed cheating. I have come to know that the accused persons; likewise me; have usurped the money of other traders also; due to which, I and my family have to face mental and economic harassments. It is therefore, prayed to your good-self that after registering case F.I.R. against the accused immediately; the accused may kindly be arrested at the earliest because the accused at any time to avoid payment of my amount and that of other traders; by closing their office may fled abroad. The accused may kindly be get awarded deterrent punishment and our amount of Rs. 2,02,35,882.67 may be got recovered from the accused to us and we may be imparted justice and oblige. Thanking you, Sd/- Naresh Kumar S/o Punnu Ram Ahuja,

5 of 16

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065371

Dated:3.2.23 R/o Bajrang Bali Colony, Rohtak Gate, Bhiwani. Mob. No. 9992092500"

4. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the complainant was

joined in investigation and the records and accounts statements

pertaining to Ahuja Enterprises and Vaishno Distribution firms were

obtained. The records and accounts statements of 7 accounts of M/s

MDM Televentures Pvt. Ltd. were obtained and taken into possession.

From the scrutiny of those documents it was found that the co-accused

Silka Saloni Biswal, Supriya Nakra (petitioner in CRM-M-44766-2023),

Monish Mittal and Ashok Kumar (petitioner in CRM-M-36015-2023)

were the authorized signatories of the company's bank accounts.

Tanuj Ahuja, the son of the complainant produced the

master data of the accused company M/s MDM Televentures Pvt. Ltd.,

the list of debtors and creditors, the list of directors of the company and

four cheques. From the scrutiny of these documents it was found that

petitioner-Ashok Kumar Sahni was a Director of the Company whereas

he along with petitioner-Supriya Nakra and others were also authorized

signatories in the company's bank accounts.

During the course of investigation, Monish Mittal was

arrested and recoveries were effected from him. He disclosed that he had

forged the signatures of Silka Saloni Biswal on two cheques in favour of

the complainant firms for an amount of Rs.39,41,672/- and

Rs.1,60,31,369/-. Accordingly, Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC were added

in the case.

6 of 16

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065371

5. The co-accused Pardipto Ganguly and the present

petitioners filed petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail. During the

pendency of the petitions, the investigation was going on and it was

found that Pardipto Ganguly was a Director of M/s MDM Televentures

Pvt. Ltd. between 01.02.2020 and 12.02.2020. Thereafter, he joined as a

Director on 02.04.2022 and continued as such. Pardipto Ganguly was

found to be the person behind all operations. Silka Saloni Biswal was

his daughter and the authorized signatory in the bank accounts of M/s

MDM Televentures Pvt. Ltd. She was also a whole time Director. Ashok

Kumar Sahani was the Director of M/s MDM Televentures Pvt. Ltd.

from 30.11.2021 till date. He is the father of Supriya Nakra who's

husband Deepak Nakra was an employee of the REAL ME Mobile

Telecommunication Company Cyber City, Gurugram. Supriya Nakra

was the authorized signatory of the accounts of M/s MDM Televentures

Pvt. Ltd., the OTP approver of the main accounts of the Company and

also the administrative head. Co-accused Monish Mittal was first a

Director of M/s MDM Televentures Pvt. Ltd. after which he was

appointed as Chief Financial Officer and an authorized signatory in the

bank accounts. He was arrested and has been granted the concession of

regular bail.

6. The State filed affidavits showing the details of the bank

accounts to which money was transferred from the bank accounts of the

accused Company M/s MDM Televentures Pvt. Ltd. A perusal of the

chart produced would show that a huge amount of money in crores has

been transferred from the bank accounts of the Company into the

7 of 16

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065371

accounts of Pardipto Ganguly, his family members, other accused and

companies/entities controlled by the other accused including the

petitioners. It has been stated in the reply that as there are a large

number of transactions, the investigation regarding the same was on

going.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the

case of Ashok Kumar Sahni contends that he is of the age of 71 years

and is ailing. Though, he was a Director, he was not involved in the day-

to-day workings of the Company. He himself had made complaints

against Pardipto Ganguly, Monish Mittal and others to the

Commissioner of Police, Gurugram for siphoning off Rs.30 crores. FIR

No.395 dated 15.06.2023, U/s 408 and 420 IPC, P.S. Gurgaon Sadar

stood registered against Pardipto Ganguly and others at the instance of

the petitioner. The investigation conducted so far would show that no

money had been transferred from the accounts of the accused company

into the personal accounts of the petitioner. Monish Mittal was arrested

and had been granted the concession of regular bail. As the case was

based on documentary evidence and he was ready and willing to join

investigation, he was entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

8. With respect to petitioner-Supriya Nakra, the learned

counsel for the petitioner contends that she was not named in the FIR.

She was a lady and an employee only on paper. As the case was

primarily of a civil nature and based on documentary evidence, she too

was entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail moreso when in the

case of Monish Mittal this Court had observed that it would be a moot

8 of 16

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065371

point during the course of the Trial as to whether the allegations would

constitute a civil dispute or if a criminal offence was made out.

9. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that

petitioner-Ashok Kumar Sahni was a Director of the Company. He had

levelled allegations against his co-accused Pardipto Ganguly to avoid

his own liability. Though at this stage, the investigation did not reveal

that any money had come into the personal bank accounts of the

petitioner, the investigation did show that various amounts of money had

gone into bank accounts of entities controlled by relatives of the

petitioner. Therefore, as the offence was prima facie established, he was

not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail moreso when he was a

habitual offender with 03 other cases bearing FIR No.60 dated

23.02.2023, U/s 406, 420, P.S. Rajpur Dehradun, FIR No.252 dated

01.05.2023, U/s 406, 420, 506, P.S. Ambala Cantt. and FIR No.603

dated 26.07.2023, U/s 406, 420, 506, 120B, P.S. Hisar City registered

against him.

As regards petitioner-Supriya Nakra, the learned State

counsel contends that the investigation revealed that she was the

authorized signatory of the accounts of the accused company, the OTP

approver of the main accounts and also administrative head. She was

also the daughter of Ashok Kumar Sahni. Her husband Deepak Nakra

was an employee of REALME Mobile Telecommunication Company

Cyber City, Gurugram and had facilitated the deal with the accused

company and M/s Realme. The investigation had revealed that various

amounts from the bank accounts of the accused company were

9 of 16

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065371

transferred into entities controlled by relatives and associates of the

petitioner. As the offence was prima facie established and the

investigation was to be taken to its logical conclusion, she too was not

entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail moreso when one other

case bearing FIR No.60 dated 23.02.2023, U/s 406, 420, P.S. Rajpur

Dehradun stood registered against her.

10. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the

investigation conducted so far has clearly established that the payments

made by the complainant firms and various other entities to the accused

company were siphoned off into bank accounts of the petitioners, other

accused and entities controlled by the petitioners and the other accused.

The investigation was still ongoing and the extent of the fraud would be

revealed only in time. However, petitioner-Ashok Kumar Sahni was

admittedly a Director whereas both the petitioners were also authorized

signatories in the bank accounts. He, therefore contends that the

petitioners were not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail as the

allegations could not be said to amount to a civil dispute alone.

11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha

Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022 Live Law (SC) 870 held

that merely because custodial interrogation was not required by itself

could not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the

foremost thing the Court hearing the anticipatory bail application is to

consider is the prima facie case against the accused. The relevant extract

of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

10 of 16

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065371

"It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It will be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation.

Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

We are dealing with a matter wherein the original complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the

11 of 16

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065371

court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.

13. A perusal of the record would show that after the

complainant entities transferred a sum of Rs.2.02 crores into the bank

accounts of the accused company, the said company did not transfer the

payment to M/s Realme Mobile Telecommunication India Pvt. Ltd. for

supply of mobile phone accessories. On the contrary, the amount

received from the complainant as also various other amounts received

from other persons/companies have been siphoned off in a systematic

manner by the petitioners, their co-accused and the entities controlled by

them. Though the investigations are ongoing, the details of some of the

transfers are as under:-

Sr. No. Name of Name of Time period Amount Name of Relation of compaies Banks and of beneficiary accused accounts transactions numbers 1 MDM Standard 03.05.2019 97,67,414/ Pardipto Main Chartered to 30.11.2022 Received by Ganguly accused and Bank the present namely in Gurugram petitioner FIR A/c Pardipto No.5310512 Ganguly 1597 & A/c from MDM No.5310512

2 MDM State Bank 03.05.2019 15, 63, Pardipto Main of India A/c to 946/- Ganguly accused and No.0000003 30.03.2020 Received by namely in 835297834 the present FIR petitioner Pardipto Ganguly from MDM

12 of 16

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065371

3 MDM Standard 26.11.2020 to 83,25,000/- Minirwa Wife of Chartered 15.09.2022 Received by Ganguly Pardipto Bank the Minirva Ganguly Gurugram Ganguly A/c from MDM No.5310512

4 MDM Stand 13.11.2019 to 2,00,90,000 Monish Main Chartered 14.11.2021 /- Received Mittal accused & Bank by the namely in Gurugram Monish FIR A/c Mittal from No.5310512 MDM

5 MDM Standard 12.11.2021 to 71,80,000/- Dynamic Company of Chartered 22.11.2021 Sales co-accused Bank Monish Gurugram Mittal A/c No.5310512 1597 & A/c No.5310512 2593 & SBI A/c No.0000003 8352978341 6 MDM SBI A/c 22.05.2019 67,00,000/- A.R Relative of No.0000003 to Associates co-accused 8352978341 22.08.2019 Monish Mittal 7 MDM Standard 06.08.2020 2,00,000/- Pushpak Brother of Chartered to Ganguly co-accused Bank 06.10.2022 Pardipto Gurugrum Ganguly A/c No.5310512

8 MDM Standard 16.05.2020 18,00,000/- Nidhi Hasija Relative of Chartered to co-accused Bank 16.10.2020 Deepak Gurugrum Nakra A/c No.5310512

9 MDM Standard 20.10.2020 11,59,742/- Ashish Previous Chartered to Sangwan Director of Bank 06.10.2022 MDM Gurugrum Company & A/c friend of co-

                    No.5310512                                        accused
                    1597 & A/c                                        Deepak
                    No.5310512                                        Nakra
                    2534 & A/c
                    No.0000003
                    8352978341
10   MDM            Standard   30.04.2019    4,43,85,000 RVD Sales    Relative of
                    Chartered  to 11.03.2020 /-                       co-accused
                    Bank                                              Monish
                    Gurugrum                                          Mittal
                    A/c
                    No.5310512
                    1597 & SBI
                    A/c
                    No.0000003
                    8352978341



                              13 of 16

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065371

11 MDM Standard 03.12.2020 2,05,61,610 Vihan Relative of Chartered to /- Associates co-accused Bank 10.09.2022 Supriya Gurugrum Nakra & A/c Ashok No.5310512 Sahani 1597 & A/co No.5310512 2534 & A/c No.5310512 2135 & A/c No.5310512

Sr. No. Name of Name of Time period Amount Name of Relation of compaies Banks and of beneficiary accused accounts transactions numbers 1 MDM Standard 15.06.2020 6,00,000/- Pardipto Main Chartered to Ganguly accused Bank 02.01.2021 Gurugram A/c No.5210512

2 MDM State Bank 11.09.2022 to 15,00,000/- Pardipto Main of India A/c 20.10.2022 Ganguly accused No.0000003 83529783 3 MDM Standard 26.11.2020 60,00,000/- Minirwa Wife of Chartered Ganguly Pardipto Bank Ganguly Gurugram A/c No.5210512

4 MDM Standard 13.10.2020 2,00,33,894 Kavita Relative of Chartered to /- Enterprises Deepak Bank 08.12.2022 Nakra, Gurugram Supriya A/c Nakra & No.5210512 Ashok Kr.

                         1597,                                            Sahni
                         5310512213
                         5         &
                         5310512253

5         KAVITA         HDFC Bank 08.12.2022     10,00,000/- Deepak        Main
          ENTERPRISES    Udyog                                Nakra         accused
                         Vihar,
                         Gurugram,
                         A/c
                         No.5920991
                         0109066
6         MDM            Standard   24.11.2022    3,00,00,000 TNS           Complainant
                         Chartered                /-          Solutions     company in
                         Bank                                 Company       FIR
                         Gurugram                                           No.60//23
                         A/c                                                P.S. Rajpur,
                         No.5210512                                         Dehradun
                         1597                                               (U.K.)




                                   14 of 16

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065371

7 MDM SBI A/c 12.11.2021 to 1,39,50,000 Dynamic Company of No.0000038 13.09.2022 /- Sales co-accused 3529778341 Monish & others 8 MDM Standard 02.12.2020 1,09,00,000 Vihan Company of Chartered to /- Associates relative of Bank 18.01.2022 Supriya Gurugram Nakra, Ashok A/c Kumar No.5310512 Sahani 2135 & 5310512253

14. The argument that the dispute is purely civil in nature

inasmuch as goods have not been supplied despite payments having

been made, cannot be accepted. The accused company received Rs.2.02

crores from the complainant companies and instead of transferring the

same to M/s Realme Mobile Telecommunication India Pvt. Ltd. for

supply of material, transferred the same along with various amounts

received from other individuals/companies into bank accounts

controlled by the petitioners, their co-accused, family members and

associates. In fact, when co-accused Monish Mittal was granted regular

bail on 19.07.2023, at that time the details of the siphoning off of funds

from the bank accounts of the accused company were not available. The

same came on record only in the affidavits of the State filed in