[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Tarun Chauhan vs State Of Haryana And Another on 16 April, 2026

                     CRR-1266-2024 (O&M)                                                              -1-

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                              CHANDIGARH

                     224                                          CRR-1266-2024 (O&M)
                                                                  Date of decision : 16.04.2026

                     Tarun Chauhan
                                                                                     ... Petitioner
                                        Versus

                     State of Haryana and another                                    .. Respondents

                     CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL

                     Present:-    Mr. Kunal Dawar, Senior Advocate with
                                  Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                  Mr. Vijay Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

                                  None for respondent No.2 despite service.

                                        ***

                     H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated

30.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I,

Faridabad, whereby the petitioner has been charged for the offence punishable

under Sections 120-B, 420 & 406 IPC and Section 3 of the Haryana Protection

of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013 (hereinafter

referred to as 'HPIDFE Act') in case FIR No.674 dated 12.12.2017, registered

under Sections 406/420/467/468/120-B IPC at Police Station Kotwali, District

Faridabad.

2. The case of the prosecution is that respondent No. 2 submitted a

complaint against the Directors of Hello Distribution Pvt. Ltd., namely,

Bhisham Chauhan, Surender Attri, Tarun Chauhan (present petitioner), Vishal

Benipal and Kharak Singh, as well as employees of the Company, namely

CRR-1266-2024 (O&M) -2-

Pankaj Sharma and Jaiveer. It is alleged that the accused persons launched a

scheme whereby innocent persons were induced to deposit an amount of

Rs.1,000/- per month for a period of 17 months upon the assurance that, in

return, they would be provided with a 32-inch LED television. However, when

the depositors approached the accused persons upon completion of the said

period, neither they delivered the promised LED television sets nor did they

agreed to return the deposited amount.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial

Court has erred in invoking Section 3 of the HPIDFE Act as the alleged

company i.e. Hello Distribution Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors have not been

running a financial establishment or chit fund scheme, whereas they are

engaged in the business of sale of electronic goods. Moreover, the alleged

amount collected from customers were in the nature of installments towards the

purchase of LED television sets and not deposits within the ambit of the

HPIDFE Act.

4. It is further submitted by learned Senior counsel that as per the

exceptions provided under Section 2(b)(v)(IV) of the HPIDFE Act, any

amount received against an order for goods or services does not fall within the

definition of 'deposit'. Therefore, the amounts collected by the petitioner,

being advance payments for the supply of LED televisions, are clearly covered

under the said exception and no offence under Section 3 of the HPIDFE Act is

made out against him.

5. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the basic ingredients

of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 and 406 IPC are also not

attracted, as there was neither any dishonest intention nor any act of cheating

CRR-1266-2024 (O&M) -3-

on the part of the petitioner. The amount alleged by the prosecution was

received as advance consideration for delivery of LED TVs and thus, no

criminal liability can be fastened upon the petitioner. It is also submitted that

the impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner without proper

appreciation of the material on record and the legal provisions applicable to the

case and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel, while referring to the status

report filed by way of an affidavit of Sh.Jitesh Malhotra, HPS, Assistant

Commissioner of Police Traffic-I, Faridabad submits that the petitioner, along

with co-accused caused wrongful loss to the complainant and other investors as

they failed to pay back the deposits or the promised benefits in the form of

LED TVs and also failed to render the specified services assured against such

deposits. It is further submitted that the petitioner received a sum of

₹1,61,00,000/- as his share out of the total cheated amount of ₹22,48,46,700/-

belonging to the complainant and other investors. He also submits that another

case, bearing FIR No. 1452 dated 05.12.2017, registered under Sections 406,

420 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 3 of the HPIDFE FE Act at Police

Station City Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, is also pending against the

petitioner along with the co-accused.

7. However, despite service, respondent No.2 has not chosen to

appear.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the

material available on record.

9. The primary issue that arises for consideration in the present case

is whether the amounts received by the petitioner qualify as 'deposits' within

CRR-1266-2024 (O&M) -4-

the meaning of Section 2(b) of the HPIDFE Act, or whether it is excluded

from the said definition as it was taken as advance payment for goods or

services in the normal course of business.

10. For the proper adjudication of the issue in hand, it is necessary to

look at the definition of the term "deposit" given under Section 2(b) of the

HPIDFE Act, which is as follows:-

"In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(a) xxxxx

(b) "deposit" includes and shall be deemed always to have included any receipt of money or acceptance of any valuable commodity by any financial establishment to be returned after a specified period or otherwise, either in cash or in kind or in the form of a specified service with or without any benefit in the form of interest, bonus, profit or in any other form, but does not include-

(i) an amount raised by way of share capital or by way of debenture, bond or any other instrument covered under the guidelines issued and regulations made under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (Central Act 15 of 1992);

(ii) an amount contributed as capital by partners of a firm;

(iii) an amount received from a Scheduled bank or a cooperative bank or any other banking company as defined in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (Central Act 10 of 1949);

(iv) any amount received from-

(I) the Industrial Development Bank of India; (II) a State Financial Corporation;

(III) any financial institution specified in section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act 1 of 1956); or (IV) any other institution that may be specified by Government in this behalf;

(v) amounts received in the ordinary course of business by way of-

(I) security deposit;

(II) dealership deposit;

(III) earnest money; or (IV) advance against order for goods or services;

(vi) any amount received from an individual or a firm or an association of individuals not being a body corporate, registered under any enactment relating to money lending for the time being in force in the State;

(vii) any amount received by way of subscriptions in respect of a Chit.

CRR-1266-2024 (O&M) -5-

Explanation- For the purpose of this clause, "Chit" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it under clause (b) of section 2 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (Central Act 40 of 1982); and