Arhaan Gupta Son Of Shri Naresh Gupta vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court considered the submissions and perused the material on record. It found that the FIR and the allegations contained therein indicated the commission of a cognizable offence, which warranted investigation by the investigating officers. The Court held that at this stage, it could not adjudicate on the correctness of the allegations, as that is the task of the investigating officer. However, the Court directed that the petitioners could submit a detailed representation with relevant documents to the Investigating Officer, who was to consider it in accordance with the law. The Court further stipulated that if the Investigating Officer concluded that a cognizable offence was made out, they must issue a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS to the petitioners before proceeding. Even if an arrest was deemed necessary, at least 15 days' prior notice would be given to the petitioners. The misc. petition was disposed of with these observations.

Facts

The petitioners, Arhaan Gupta and Naresh Gupta, proprietors/authorized persons of M/s Sultan Cranes Services, filed a petition seeking to quash FIR No. 98/2025 registered at Police Station Chitrakoot, Jaipur (West). The FIR was registered for alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The petitioners contended that they had merely uploaded bills/invoices on the GST portal as per the Goods and Services Tax Act provisions and had not committed any offence. Despite this, they alleged that the respondents were intent on apprehending them, necessitating court intervention.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should quash the FIR registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, given the petitioners' contention that their actions related to uploading GST invoices do not constitute an offence? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that their actions were solely in compliance with the Goods and Services Tax Act, specifically the uploading of bills/invoices. They asserted that no offence was made out against them under these circumstances and that the FIR was therefore baseless. They sought the High Court's interference to prevent their apprehension. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer, submitting that the contents of the FIR clearly revealed the commission of a cognizable offence. They argued that such offences require investigation by the appropriate agency and that the High Court's interference at this stage was not warranted.