Vijay vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court held that the dispute between the parties appears to be purely of a civil nature, arising from multiple financial transactions and accounting discrepancies, rather than constituting criminal offences of cheating and fraud. The Court referred to Supreme Court pronouncements in Vesa Holding Vs. State of Kerala and Ravinder Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan, emphasizing that not every breach of contract amounts to cheating, and deception must be present at the inception. The Court also noted its own observations in Deepak Daggar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. that every breach of contract does not give rise to a criminal offence. Furthermore, the Court considered the argument that a previous inquiry had not established criminality and that repeated inquiries into the same issues are not permissible, referencing Surinder Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. The Court found that denial of custodial interrogation would not harm the investigation, as the evidence is documentary and largely collected. Therefore, the Court allowed the petition, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions of joining the investigation, not leaving the country, not influencing witnesses, and abiding by Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Facts

The petitioner, Vijay, is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 363 dated 20.06.2025, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. His application for anticipatory bail was previously dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. The FIR stems from a complaint by Ritesh Kumar, who alleges he was defrauded by the petitioner and co-accused through false claims and forged documents, resulting in the misappropriation of his money. The complainant claims he was induced to invest in sand mining ventures based on representations of partnership and the transfer of environmental clearances, leading to multiple financial transactions between August 2022 and April 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, primarily concerning financial transactions and alleged misrepresentations in a business venture, constitute criminal offences of cheating and fraud, or if they represent a purely civil dispute. 2. Whether the denial of custodial interrogation to the investigating agency will cause harm to the investigation, considering the nature of the evidence. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the dispute is purely civil in nature, arising from a breach of contract, and that the allegations do not disclose any criminal offence. He argued that the transactions were part of a business arrangement, and any financial discrepancies should be resolved through civil proceedings. He also highlighted that previous inquiries had not established criminality against him and that repeated inquiries into the same issues are impermissible. The petitioner relied on Supreme Court judgments stating that every breach of contract does not amount to cheating and that a civil dispute should not be given the colour of a criminal case. Respondent's arguments: The State of Haryana, through its counsel, argued that the FIR discloses cognizable offences, and therefore, anticipatory bail should not be granted. The complainant's counsel supported the registration of the FIR, emphasizing the alleged fraudulent inducements and financial losses incurred by the complainant.