Shri Khusdeep Bansal And Anr vs. The State Of Assam And Anr

Facts

The petitioner, Pavneet Gulati, filed a criminal petition challenging an order dated June 6, 2025, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), which dismissed his FIR. The petitioner alleged that an earlier FIR lodged by STIPL and its associates, Rajinder Sharma and Mohit Kalra, leading to CID PS Case No. 16/2023, was based on fabricated facts and involved a fraudulent business transaction between STIPL and Matak Autonomous Council. The petitioner claimed that the vendor suppliers were shell entities facilitating false billing and GST fraud. He stated that his FIR, lodged on March 28, 2025, detailing this fraud, was not registered. The respondents argued that the petitioner's FIR was an afterthought to delay proceedings and that the allegations could be raised during the trial of the existing CID case. They contended that the petitioner introduced STIPL agents to the Matak Autonomous Council, leading to a conspiracy and cheating of STIPL.

Held

The Court directed that the FIR lodged by the petitioner be registered and investigated by the police. The Court noted that the earlier dismissal order by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was based on the pendency of a complaint petition filed by Smt. Mamta Aggarwal, wife of Sri Harish Bansal, which was then under inquiry. However, it was stated at the Bar that Smt. Aggarwal's complaint had been dismissed and no similar petitions were pending. Given this development and the fact that the petitioner's FIR raised allegations of fraud, the Court found it appropriate for the FIR to be enquired into or investigated. Regarding Crl.Pet. No. 1189/2025, which challenged an order refusing further investigation in CID Police Station Case No. 16/2023, the Court found no reason to interfere in light of the order passed in Crl.Pet. No. 761/2025. The criminal petitions were disposed of accordingly. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's FIR, alleging fraud and GST irregularities in a transaction between STIPL and Matak Autonomous Council, should be registered and investigated, despite a prior FIR and ongoing proceedings (CID PS Case No. 16/2023) initiated by STIPL and its associates. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the prior FIR was based on fabricated facts and involved a fraudulent scheme, including the creation of sale of goods only on paper without actual delivery. He contended that the vendor suppliers were shell entities used for false billing and GST fraud, and that he was falsely implicated in the criminal case. He asserted that his FIR was necessary to bring the real facts to light and prevent continued fraud. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner's FIR was an afterthought, intended solely to delay the existing proceedings. They contended that any claims made by the petitioner could and should be raised during the trial of the CID case, and that a separate FIR filed after a considerable delay was unnecessary and would only cause further delays. They also alleged that the petitioner was involved in a conspiracy to cheat STIPL.