Ankur vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court held that interference at the stage of investigation should be in exceptional circumstances, and the High Court should not embark on an inquiry into the genuineness of allegations in the FIR. The petitioner's grounds were considered matters of defense or for the investigating agency. The Court cited M/s Neeharika Infrastructure's case, emphasizing that courts should not thwart investigations into cognizable offenses and should not pronounce conclusions based on hazy facts at the investigation stage. Furthermore, the Court noted the disturbing feature that the petitioner, despite his anticipatory bail being rejected, had chosen not to join the investigation and instead filed the present petition for quashing. Citing Virender Prasad Singh Vs. Rajesh Bhardwaj & Ors., the Court observed that such actions by an accused to stall proceedings and avoid arrest indicate a lack of bona fides. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the quashing petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Ankur, sought to quash an FIR registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. The FIR alleged that the petitioner obtained CGST/HGST registration for his firm, M/s R.S. Steel Trader, using fake and forged documents, with the intent to fraudulently claim input tax credit and evade taxes. An inquiry found the firm was not functioning at the registered address. The petitioner argued that the FIR was registered without preliminary inquiry and that the documents submitted for registration, including rent deeds and identity proofs, were genuine. He also claimed that his business transactions were valid and that he had made representations to senior police officials regarding his false implication. The State contended that the petitioner's bail application was rejected and he was absconding, hindering the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court is justified in quashing an FIR at the nascent stage of investigation, particularly when the accused is absconding, based on the principles laid down in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. and State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the FIR was registered without a preliminary inquiry and that the documents submitted for GST registration were genuine, proving his innocence. He asserted that his business transactions were valid and that his representations to the police regarding false implication were ignored. He argued that the investigating agency had failed to find any material against him over three years, indicating his innocence. Respondent's (State of Haryana) arguments: The State argued that the petitioner's bail application had been rejected, and he was absconding, which had stalled the investigation. They contended that a perusal of the FIR and attached documents prima facie established the commission of offences, and therefore, quashing the FIR at an early stage was not warranted, especially at the instance of an absconding accused.