Prashant Sharma vs. State Of Haryana

Facts

The petitioners, Prashant Sharma and Prem Chetan Sharma, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 131 dated 01.07.2025, registered under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Sector-18, Gurugram. The FIR alleges that as Directors of M/s. Citi Mega Mart Pvt. Ltd., they defrauded the complainant-Company by causing it to pay approximately Rs. 3,59,58,127 to three vendor firms (Affinity Apparels, Oshia International, and BTC Retail), which were subsidiaries of the petitioners' company. The allegation is that the same individuals were directors in both the accused company and the vendor firms, and no goods were supplied, constituting money laundering. The petitioners claim they resigned as directors on 31.12.2024 and that the liability was accepted by other co-directors.

Held

The Court dismissed the petitions for anticipatory bail. Regarding the first issue, while the petitioners argued the matter was civil, the Court implicitly found that the allegations of forged bills, non-supply of goods, and routing of funds through shell companies, as presented by the State and the complainant, pointed towards criminal intent and potential criminal liability under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. The Court did not explicitly rule on the civil vs. criminal nature but proceeded to consider the criminal aspects for bail. On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to anticipatory bail. The reasoning was based on the seriousness of the allegations, the gravity of the offence due to the large sum involved, and the antecedents of the petitioners, including the pendency of multiple cases against the accused company and the cancellation of its GST number. The Court emphasized the necessity of custodial interrogation for effective investigation, citing the Supreme Court's decision in C.B.I. vs. Anil Sharma, which highlighted that useful information may be elicited from a suspect in custody. The Court explicitly stated that nothing observed would prejudice the trial and directed the trial court to proceed on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose criminal liability against the petitioners, or if they pertain solely to civil liability, as argued by the petitioners? This issue turns on the interpretation of Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in the context of the alleged fraudulent transactions. The petitioners contended that the FIR is an abuse of process, motivated by a desire to extort money, and that the dispute is civil in nature. They also argued that their resignation as directors absolved them of liability. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail, considering the seriousness of the allegations, the magnitude of the amount involved, and their antecedents, as argued by the State and the complainant? The State argued that the money was routed through the company they directed, forged bills were generated, and the vendor firms were shell companies. The complainant added that one vendor director is the petitioner's wife, the invoices were fabricated, and the petitioners are habitual offenders with 23 cases pending against the accused company, whose GST number was cancelled.