Sushant Shinde Alias Sushant Vishnu Shinde vs. State Of Punjab And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Sushant Shinde, filed a petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 438 Cr.P.C.) seeking anticipatory bail. He was booked in FIR No. 0278 dated 28.12.2024, under Sections 316(2), 318(4), and 61(2) of the BNS at PS Kotwali, Patiala. The complainant alleged that the petitioner and others fraudulently took away 106 grams 300 mg of gold, valued at Rs. 8,61,000/-, and failed to return it. The petitioner claimed he is an expert in gold valuation, and the FIR was registered due to pressure from the complainant to join their business. He argued the dispute was civil in nature, and the FIR was an abuse of process. The petitioner also challenged the authenticity of bills presented by the complainant, citing the absence of GST/PIN numbers and differing signatures.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner and the complainant were involved in business transactions, as evidenced by the bills dated 23.09.2024 and 07.10.2024, which were placed on record by the complainant. Consequently, the Court deemed it inappropriate to make definitive comments on whether a criminal case was made out at this stage, leaving this determination to the trial court. The Court observed that the petitioner had joined the investigation on 14.11.2025 and that his custodial interrogation was no longer required. The interim concession of bail granted earlier was made absolute. The petitioner was directed to continue joining the investigation as and when required and to abide by the terms and conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023. Additionally, the petitioner was required to submit his passport to the Investigating Agency or the Court within one week, or submit an affidavit stating he does not possess one. Failure to comply with this condition would render the order non est.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant is civil in nature, making the registration of a criminal FIR an abuse of the process of law, particularly in light of the petitioner's claim that the FIR was filed to pressurize him into joining the complainant's business? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the dispute was primarily civil, arising from business transactions involving gold ornaments. He argued that the complainant's grievance, if any, should be pursued through civil proceedings. The petitioner also asserted that the FIR was a retaliatory measure to coerce him into joining the complainant's business, as he was unwilling to do so. He further challenged the validity of the bills presented by the complainant, highlighting discrepancies such as the lack of GST/PIN numbers and alleged forged signatures, suggesting the valuation was inconsistent with prevailing market rates. Respondent's arguments: The State counsel argued that there was another pending complaint against the petitioner, suggesting a pattern of similar conduct. The complainant's counsel referred to a previous FIR (No. 230 dated 18.11.2023) involving similar allegations against the petitioner under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B IPC.