Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pradipto Ganguly vs State Of Haryana And Another on 10 May, 2024

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065366




CRM-M-23736-2023                                                 -1-


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH
                                   CRM-M-23736-2023
                            Date of decision : 10.05.2024
PRADIPTO GANGULY
                                             ... Petitioner
                                   Versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
                                                           ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:    Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate assisted by
            Mr. HDS Bains, Advocate
            Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate and
            Mr. Prince Bharol, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            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.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 438 of

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

No.49 dated 01.03.2023 registered under Sections 406/420/506/120B

IPC (Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC added later on) at Police Station

Industrial Area, Bhiwani.

2. 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

1 of 17

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065366

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 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

2 of 17

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065366

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 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

3 of 17

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065366

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 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

4 of 17

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065366

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

3. 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

5 of 17

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065366

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, Monish Mittal and Ashok Kumar

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

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

present petitioner was the earlier Director of the Company and is the

current Director of the Company. The petitioner had issued two cheques

from his personal account in favour of the complainant which had been

dishonoured.

Co-accused Silka Saloni Biswal, the daughter of the present

petitioner was shown as having retired from the Company on

05.04.2022 whereas her signatures were appearing on the cheques dated

15.01.2023 and 20.01.2023. These signatures were found to be forged

by co-accused Monish Mittal. The signatures of Silka Saloni Biswal

were also found appearing on the Distributorship Agreement of M/s

MDM Televentures Pvt. Ltd. with Realme dated 29.08.2022.

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

6 of 17

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065366

of Rs.39,41,672/- and Rs.1,60,31,369/-. Accordingly, Sections 467, 468,

471 IPC were added in the case.

4. The petitioner filed a petition for the grant of anticipatory

bail and was granted the concession of interim bail vide order dated

29.05.2023. During the pendency of this petition, various orders were

passed seeking details of the investigation conducted. It was found that

the petitioner 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. The petitioner 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.

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

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

7 of 17

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065366

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

accounts of the petitioner, his family members other accused and

companies/entities controlled by the other accused. It has been stated in

the reply that as there are a large number of transactions and the

investigations regarding the same were on going.

6. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that a

pure business dispute between the parties has been given the colour of a

criminal offence. In fact, the parties had been dealing with each other for

two years preceding the FIR. Admittedly, money had been received from

the complainant firms but due to failure of business and a financial

crunch, material could not be supplied to the complainant-company. No

offence as alleged was made out and the dispute, if any is of a civil

nature. The accused company itself had entered into an MoU with

another entity to revive its fortunes. The petitioner was not a Director

but only a sales head. He became a Director only on 02.04.2022 to

honour the MoU. The complainant-Naresh Kumar Ahuja had entered the

office of the petitioner and had forced him to sign two cheques from his

personal account. Based on the said cheques, proceedings under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been initiated against him.

Similarly, the two cheques purportedly signed by Silka Saloni Biswal

were in fact signed by Monish Mittal as has been admitted by him.

Therefore, the accused were being coerced to issue cheques in favour of

8 of 17

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065366

the complainant entities. As the case was based on documentary

evidence and the petitioner had joined investigation, he was entitled to

the concession of anticipatory bail.

7. On the other hand, the learned State counsel while referring

to the replies by way of affidavits dated 16.08.2023, 18.03.2024 and

22.04.2024 contends that admittedly, the accused company received a

huge amount of money towards sale of mobile phone accessories.

Instead of forwarding the payment to the REAL ME Mobile

Telecommunication Company for the supply of the accessories, the

accused company and its officers including the petitioner had siphoned

off the money received from the complainant. Not only this, crores of

rupees had been siphoned off from the accounts of the accused company

into other accounts controlled by the petitioner, his co-accused and

entities controlled by them. The investigations regarding the bank

transactions showing siphoning off of money was going on. As the

offence was prima facie established and the investigation was to be

taken to its logical conclusion, the petitioner was not entitled to the

concession of anticipatory bail moreso as he was not cooperating in the

investigation and was an accused in four 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., FIR No.603

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

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

9 of 17

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065366

8. The learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant,

while opposing the prayer for the grant of anticipatory bail contends that

the petitioner had issued two commitment letters admitting the liability

of the accused company to pay the complainant/respondent No.2 and his

family. Silka Saloni Biswal had represented herself to be a Director in

one such letter though she had resigned from her post. Four post-dated

cheques handed over by the accused to repay the complainant were

dishonoured leading to the initiation of proceedings under Section 138

of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The question of the complainant

pressurizing the petitioner did not arise. In fact, the cheques had been

issued by the petitioner and the other accused as the complainant was

demanding his money. In the present case, it was a clear case of cheating

inasmuch as in the petition itself it has been admitted in para 5 that the

material could not have been supplied to the complainant-firm as the

accused company had not received the same from M/s Oppo India Pvt.

Ltd. During investigation in response to a Notice under Section 91

Cr.P.C., a reply was submitted on 20.09.2023 as per which it has been

clearly stated that M/s MDM Televentures Pvt. Ltd. had not paid any

amount to M/s Realme Mobile Telecommunication India Pvt. Ltd. and

therefore, the question of providing material/mobile phone accessories

did not arise. (The copy of the reply dated 20.09.2023 is marked as X).

Co-accused Ashok Kumar Sahani himself had levelled allegations

against the petitioner of siphoning off more than Rs.30 crores and FIR

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

10 of 17

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065366

stands registered against the petitioner and others. The accused company

was in conspiracy with Mr. Madhav Seth, CEO Asia of the Realme

Company. There was an attempt to tamper with the evidence by writing

to the banks to remove the beneficiary names from the bank statements.

A back dated resignation of Silka Saloni Biswal showing that she had

resigned w.e.f 04.05.2022 though she had actually resigned on

07.12.2022 was prepared. The investigation conducted so far would

show that a huge amount of money in crores had been siphoned off from

the bank accounts of M/s MDM Televentures Pvt. Ltd. into the personal

account of the petitioner, other directors and entities controlled by them.

As the offence was prima facie established and the investigation was to

be taken to its logical, the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of

anticipatory bail.

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

10. 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:-

"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

11 of 17

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065366

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 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

12 of 17

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065366

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.

11. 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 petitioner and his 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 beneficiar accused accounts transactions y 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 from 1597 & A/c MDM No.5310512

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

13 of 17

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065366

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 from A/c MDM No.5310512

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

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 Relative of Chartered to Hasija 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




                              14 of 17

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065366

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 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





                                   15 of 17

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065366

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.) 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

12. Interestingly, an averment has been made in para 5 of the

petition that the material had not supplied to the complainant-firms on

account of the fact that the same had not been received from the

Company. This averment has been found to be specifically incorrect in

view of the communication dated 20.09.2023 addressed to the

Investigating Officer of the present case by M/s Realme Mobile

Telecommunication India Pvt. Ltd. stating that no payment had been

received by them from M/s MDM Televentures Pvt. Ltd. for supply of

any material/accessories.

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

cannot be accepted. The accused company received Rs.2.02 crores from

the complainant companies and instead of transferring the same to M/s