Harinder Singh Sodhi vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioners, Harinder Singh and Ishminder Singh Sodhi, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0263 dated 31.08.2025, registered under Sections 61, 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at Police Station Sector-27, District Sonipat. The FIR was filed by Kapil Arora, partner of OM Consultancy Engineering, alleging offences under Sections 406, 417, 418, 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant alleged that the accused firm, M/s Welkin India Incorporate, and its partners (the petitioners) conspired to defraud them by inducing them to supply construction materials worth crores of rupees. The complainant claimed to have supplied materials between March 2023 and April 2025, raising GST-compliant invoices, and discharging GST liabilities on these supplies, despite significant outstanding payments from the accused. The dispute involved unpaid invoices totaling approximately ₹1.70 crore.

Held

The Court allowed the petitions for anticipatory bail. Regarding the first issue, the Court held that the present case is based upon financial transactions in the normal course of business, and there are arguable issues concerning the quality of material supplied and its impact on the petitioners' liquidity. Therefore, it was arguable whether the necessary ingredients for an offence under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, were made out. The Court noted that the complainant had already paid a sum of Rs.2.50 crores against the invoices raised. Concerning the second issue, the Court found that the complainant's argument regarding the cheques being issued from a closed account was misleading, as the closure request pertained to a different HDFC account than the one against which the cheques in question were issued. The Court also clarified that M/s Welkin India Incorporate was a partnership firm that continued to exist until its incorporation as M/s Infracon Pvt. Limited on 01.04.2025, and the cheques were issued against the partnership firm's account, not the private limited company. The Court emphasized that every breach of commercial transactions does not necessarily constitute culpable criminal liability. It was also noted that the complainant had already filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for the dishonour of cheques. Consequently, custodial interrogation of the petitioners was deemed unnecessary. The interim orders granting anticipatory bail were made absolute, with the condition that the petitioners join the investigation as and when required and abide by the terms of Section 482 (2) BNSS.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ingredients for the commission of an offence under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are made out in the present case, considering the nature of the dispute arising from commercial transactions and alleged non-payment of dues. 2. Whether the issuance of post-dated cheques from a closed account or an account of a non-existent entity constitutes criminal intent sufficient for the FIR, especially when a parallel complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is already pending. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the dispute primarily involved financial transactions in the normal course of business, with arguable issues regarding the quality of materials supplied and the cascading effect on their liquidity. They contended that every breach of commercial transactions does not necessarily constitute culpable criminal liability. Furthermore, they highlighted that the complainant had already filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoured cheques, and the issue of whether proceedings under Section 420 IPC and Section 138 NI Act can be initiated alternatively or simultaneously is pending before the Supreme Court. They also argued that the cheques were not issued from a closed account as claimed by the complainant, and the entity issuing the cheques was a partnership firm that continued to exist until its incorporation as a private limited company. Revenue/State's arguments: The complainant (representing the State's interest in this context) argued that the post-dated cheques were issued in January 2025, despite the account being closed in November 2024, and that the cheques were issued on behalf of a company that had not yet been incorporated, constituting fraud. They also pointed out that cheques drawn on Yes Bank were dishonoured and that an amount of Rs.1.70 crore remained outstanding.