Prasana Gupta Alias Parsanna Gupta vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Prasanna Gupta, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0025 dated 14.02.2025, registered at Police Station Division No. 6, District Ludhiana, under Sections 420, 406, and 506 of the IPC. The FIR was based on a complaint by Rajnish Goel, alleging that the petitioner purchased CR Coils and CR Sheets from his firm between 2016 and 2024, incurring a debt of Rs. 1,51,59,917/-. The petitioner allegedly issued acknowledgements and cheques, which were dishonoured, and failed to offer a plot to settle the liability. The petitioner's pre-arrest bail application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, on 10.03.2025. The petitioner claims false implication to circumvent proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, initiated by the complainant prior to the FIR.

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner is alleged to have purchased goods worth Rs. 1,51,59,917/- and failed to make payment, leading to charges under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, both offences cannot simultaneously exist in the same set of facts and are antithetical. Citing Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd.'s case, the Court noted that not every breach of trust results in a criminal offence, and a civil remedy may exist for non-payment. The Court found it debatable whether the allegations constituted criminal breach of trust or cheating, especially given the pending complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, arising from the same transaction. Without commenting on the merits, the Court opined that a case for anticipatory bail was made out. The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail subject to surrendering within one week, joining the investigation, and furnishing bail bonds. Conditions included cooperation with the investigation, not inducing witnesses, not committing similar offences, and not leaving the country without permission, including depositing his passport.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ingredients for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are made out against the petitioner, considering the nature of the dispute and prior proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the FIR was an abuse of process of law and that the ingredients for Sections 406 and 420 IPC were not met, asserting that these offences are antithetical. The dispute is civil in nature, given the pending complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where the petitioner claims the cheques were security cheques misused. The petitioner argued that the complainant did not supply goods as per invoices, manufactured false bills after depositing GST, and then presented the cheques. The petitioner expressed readiness to settle, join investigation, and stated no recovery or custodial interrogation was required. Reliance was placed on Rikhab Birani and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2025 INSC 512, and Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 173. Respondent's arguments: The State argued that serious allegations of wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 1,51,59,917/- were made against the petitioner for non-payment of purchased goods. The dishonoured cheques and promises to discharge liability prima facie attracted the offences for which the petitioner was booked. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary for thorough investigation and recovery, and no exceptional circumstances for bail were made out.