Ajay Kukreja vs. State Of Punjab And Anr

Facts

The petitioner, Ajay Kukreja, proprietor of M/s Shubham Trading Corporation, is seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.104 dated 27.08.2024, registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The complainant, Kishore Kumar Saini, alleged that the petitioner borrowed Rs. 60,00,000/- for machinery and requested it be adjusted against his firm's account. The petitioner allegedly sold eight machines claimed to be in working condition, but they were found defective and overpriced. The petitioner also allegedly issued e-bills showing the machines' value at Rs. 90,00,000/-. The complainant claims to have been duped of Rs. 1,57,79,100/-. A civil suit for recovery is pending. The petitioner's anticipatory bail application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.

Held

The Court held that while a civil suit for recovery is pending, this fact alone does not negate the applicability of Section 420 of the IPC. Prima facie, a case is made out for introducing the complainant to purchase defective machines at inflated rates. The Court reiterated that anticipatory bail should not be granted routinely but only in extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, which are not present here. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is deemed necessary for a thorough investigation. The Court also noted that the petitioner's cited authorities pertained to quashing of FIRs, not bail petitions, and were therefore inapplicable. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed, without commenting on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ingredients for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are made out against the petitioner, considering the dispute arises from business transactions and a pending civil suit for recovery (Section 406 IPC, Section 420 IPC)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends he has been falsely implicated, and a civil dispute has been given a criminal colour. He denies supplying defective machines or generating forged bills, stating he supplied fifteen machines as per invoices after paying GST returns. He claims no inflated bills were raised and is ready to join the investigation. Respondents' arguments: The State and complainant argue the allegations are serious, involving defrauding the complainant of a huge amount by selling old machines as new at inflated rates. They assert custodial interrogation is required for a thorough investigation, and no extraordinary circumstances warrant anticipatory bail.