Anandpal vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court held that the dispute between the parties appeared to be primarily of an accounting nature, which is purely a civil dispute. It was observed that every breach of contract does not automatically give rise to an offence of cheating; deception must be present at the very inception. The Court also considered that the defence put forward by the accused could not be disregarded at the anticipatory bail stage, and if the dispute is purely civil, it should not be given a criminal colour. The Court noted that the evidence collected was documentary and that denial of custodial interrogation would not harm the investigation. Citing Vesa Holding Vs. State of Kerala and Ravinder Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan, the Court found that the facts and circumstances indicated a dispute of a civil nature. The Court also acknowledged the petitioner's argument regarding a previous inquiry not establishing criminality. Consequently, the Court held that the present petition deserved to be allowed, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions including joining the investigation when required, not leaving the country without permission, not influencing witnesses, and abiding by Section 482(2) of the BNSS. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Anand Pal, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 363 dated 20.06.2025, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat. The FIR stemmed from a complaint by Ritesh Kumar, alleging fraud and the use of forged documents by the petitioner and co-accused for mining operations. The complainant claimed to have been induced into a partnership for sand mining leases in Yamuna river, involving substantial financial contributions. The petitioner's application for anticipatory bail had been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, on 07.07.2025. The petitioner invoked Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for anticipatory bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dispute between the complainant and the petitioner is purely civil in nature, or does it contain ingredients of criminal offences such as cheating and fraud, as contemplated under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code? 2. Whether the registration of the FIR is vitiated by the fact that an earlier inquiry conducted at Police Station Chandni Bagh did not establish criminality against the petitioner's actions, and whether repeated inquiries into the same issues are permissible? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the entire dispute was civil in nature, arising from a breach of contract, and lacked the necessary elements of deception from the inception required for a cheating offence. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's observations in Vesa Holding Vs. State of Kerala and Ravinder Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan, emphasizing that every breach of contract does not amount to cheating and that civil disputes should not be given a criminal colour. The petitioner also argued that a previous inquiry had not found criminality, making the current FIR based on repeated inquiries impermissible, citing this Court's observations in Surinder Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. The petitioner further argued that custodial interrogation was not necessary as the evidence was documentary and already collected. Respondent's arguments: The respondent (State of Haryana) did not appear to have made specific arguments on the nature of the dispute or the permissibility of repeated inquiries in the provided text. The judgment notes the complainant's presence and arguments through counsel.