Dinkar Yadav vs. State Of Haryana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Dinkar Yadav, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 117, dated 29.04.2022, registered under Sections 406, 420, 506, and 120-B of the IPC at Police Station Sector 40, Gurugram. The FIR was based on a complaint by Yogesh Bhardwaj, who alleged that Dinkar Yadav and Manish Chaudhary induced him to invest Rs. 9 lacs for a PG business. The complainant gave a cheque for Rs. 9 lacs to Manish Chaudhary, which was encashed in favour of Shakuntla Yadav. When the complainant asked for the lease deed or refund, the accused promised profits or refund, but neither was provided. The petitioner claims false implication, a civil dispute, no financial benefit, and a delay in lodging the FIR. The State and complainant argued that the petitioner prepared a forged rent agreement using forged signatures of Jyoti Sharma for a vacant plot and obtained GST registration for his proprietorship, M/s R.D. Residency, based on this fake agreement. They contended that custodial interrogation was necessary to find the co-accused.
Held
The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. The Court found the allegations against the petitioner to be serious in nature. It reasoned that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary to facilitate a thorough probe into the matter and to discover the whereabouts of the co-accused, Manish Chaudhary. The Court also noted the allegations regarding the preparation of a forged rent agreement using forged signatures of Jyoti Sharma, which was subsequently used to obtain GST registration for the petitioner's proprietorship, M/s R.D. Residency. The Court concluded that in view of these facts and circumstances, the petition for anticipatory bail could not be allowed. No specific issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the allegations against the petitioner, Dinkar Yadav, warrant custodial interrogation for a thorough investigation, particularly concerning the discovery of the co-accused, Manish Chaudhary, and the alleged forgery of documents for GST registration? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B IPC, and principles of anticipatory bail). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, the dispute was of a civil nature between the complainant and Manish Chaudhary, he was neither a beneficiary nor had any amount encashed in his account, and there was a significant delay in lodging the FIR. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State and complainant argued that the petitioner prepared a forged rent agreement with forged signatures of Jyoti Sharma for a vacant plot, used this document to obtain GST registration for his proprietorship, M/s R.D. Residency, and that custodial interrogation was necessary to locate the co-accused and facilitate a thorough probe.
Sections Cited
Section 438 Cr.P.C., Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B IPC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CRM-M-25038-2022 - 1- 201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25038-2022 DECIDED ON:10th JUNE, 2022 DINKAR YADAV .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL. Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for the complainant. **** SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J The instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 117, dated 29.04.2022, under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120-B-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 40, District Gurugram, Haryana. The brief facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered on the basis of complaint moved by Yogesh Bhardwaj under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the allegations that he is friend of Dinkar Yadav since many years and used to have several transactions with him. In the year 2018 Dinkar Yadav introduced him with Manish Chaudhary and revealed that Manish deals in properties and in his sight there is a very good location SHAM SUNDER 2022.12.20 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-25038-2022 - 2- in DLF Phase-II, Gurguram for running a PG (paying guest) and the same is available on rent. On the assurance given by both the accused the complainant gave a cheque No. 88455 for an amount of Rs.9 lacs to Manish Chaudhary and the same was encashed in favour of Shakuntla Yadav. After some days when the complainant asked for the lease deed/rent agreement from Manish Chaudhary, he informed that the land lady has agreed to execute the lease deed in favour of Manish Chaudhary only. When the complainant asked Manish Chaudhary to refund his money then Manish Chaudhary and Dinkar Yadav told him that they would give the share of profits of PG and whenever PG will be vacated, the money will be refunded to the complainant. Neither the money was refunded nor any profit was given to the complainant. Accordingly both the accused had cheated the complainant and they have committed breach of trust. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The dispute is between the complainant and Manish Chaudhary, which is of civil nature and he has nothing to do with the allegations. Moreover, he was neither the beneficiary nor any amount is encashed in his account. There is a huge delay of more than 3 years in lodging the FIR. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer made in the present petition. It is submitted that the petitioner had prepared the rent agreement from the period 15.08.2017 to 14.08.2018 by forging the signatures of Jyoti Sharma, however, no house was found to be constructed upon the said property and it was only a vacant plot. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant further SHAM SUNDER 2022.12.20 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-25038-2022 - 3- submits that Jyoti Sharma sent an e-mail to the police stating that she has nothing to do with the agreement and her signatures are forged. Further submit that the documents have been used to obtain the GST registration. The petitioner is not co-operating in the investigation. The petitioner has received the rents accruing out of the property and also seen to have obtained the GST number for his propreitorship M/s R.D. Residency on the strength of a rent agreement regarding plot No.112, Sector 45, Gurugram, which in itself is suspected to be fake as Jyoti who is shown as lessor also sent an e-mail to the police alleging therein that she has nothing to do with the agreement and her signatures are forged. Allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to facilitate a thorough probe as also to discover the whereabouts of the co-accused Manish Chaudhary. In view of afore-said facts and circumstances, the present petition is dismissed. 10thJUNE, 2022
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL) sham
JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No SHAM SUNDER 2022.12.20 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.