BharatTaxGST

Priyanka Sohar Dhand vs. State Of Punjab And Ors

Original PDF →
CRM-M/16598/2024HC Punjab and HaryanaGSTCNR PHHC01043884202422 July 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA17 pages

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN Priyanka State of CORAM Present : HARKES Cr.P.C., 16.03.20 District punishab along wi (hereinaf proceedi 2. THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG Re Date of Pron a Sohar Dhand VERSUS Punjab & Others : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H : Mr.P.S. Ahluwalia, Advoca Mr. Keerat Dhillon, Advoca Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, AA Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Sr. A Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advoca Mr. Rishab Tewari, Advoca Mr. Hargun Sandhu, Advo Mr. Keshavam Chaudhri, A for respondents No.2 & 3. **** SH MANUJA, J. By way of present peti prayer has been made for q 024 (Annexure P/1), registere Police Commissionerate ble under Sections 420, 471 o th Section 66(D) of the Info fter referred as IT Act), a ngs emanating therefrom. Briefly stated, facts of th NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-16598-2024 eserved on: 28.05.2024 nouncement : 22.07.2024 ...Petitioner S ...Respondents HARKESH MANUJA ate and ate, for the petitioner. AG, Punjab. Advocate with ate, ate, ocate and Advocate, ition filed under Section 4 uashing of FIR No. 0035 dat ed at Police Station Division Ludhiana, for the offenc of the Indian Penal Code, 186 ormation Technology Act, 20 as well as all consequen he case are that the prese 482 ted 5, ces 60, 000 tial ent SANJAY GUPTA 2024.07.29 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document petitione No.2 and 406, 498 complain Shalini D Mediatio Court vid stayed in not settle of Wome DV Act) 10.07.20 2.1 applicatio Police, complain and com Steels. It on judic aboveno these sc User ID, misusing persons. r being the daughter-in-law d 3 earlier got registered FIR 8-A, 506, 34, 354 IPC, at P.S nants/respondents No.2 and Dhand. In that FIR, the ma n Center of this Court and the de order dated 03.12.2021. T n the house of the complainan e there and filed a petition und en from Domestic Violence A against the complainants an 023. Later, complainants/respo on/complaint dated 27.10.202 Ludhiana. In the said com nant/respondent no.2 is the Pa mplainant/respondent no.3 is t was alleged by the complai ial file the screenshots of ted two firms of the complain creenshots were obtained by , Password of the said firm g their cell phones in con It was also averred that th w of complainants/responde R No.93 dated 13.08.2021, . Women, Ludhiana against t 3, their son Ajay Dhand a atter was compromised in t e said FIR was quashed by t Thereafter, the present petition nts at Jalandhar, but again co der Section 12 of the Protect Act,2005 (hereinafter referred nd others at Ludhiana Court ondents no.2 and 3 moved 23 before the Commissioner mplaint it was specified t artner of M/s Hanumant Trad s the Proprietor of M/s All nants that petitioner had plac the documents related to nants. It was further alleged t y the petitioner by hijacking ms of the complainants and nnivance with other unkno hese documents are not pub nts u/s the and the this ner uld ion as on an r of hat ing ied ced the hat the by own blic SANJAY GUPTA 2024.07.29 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document documen governm use and the con Departm of the GS 2.2 prelimina Unit, Lu informati according section 6 2.3 quashing therefrom 3. allegation offence a induceme responde offence a out. 3.1 Section nts and the same are co ent/firms and nobody can d these cannot be downloade ncerned cell phone numbe ent or without hijacking the p ST Department. In pursuance to this ary enquiry was conducted dhiana. Both the parties w on was also sought from gly FIR No.35 dated 16.03 66(D) of IT Act was registered By way of present petit g of this FIR and all cons m. Learned counsel for the p ns made in the FIR were as alleged was made out. H ent on part of the petitione ents to deliver any property as defined under Sections 4 Learned counsel further 66(D) of Information Te onfidential documents of ownload the same for his o ed without misusing the OTP er registered with the G password or the government s s application/complainant, by the incharge, Cyber Crim were joined in the inquiry a m the GST Department a 3.2024, u/s 420,471 IPC a d against the petitioner. tion, petitioner has sought sequential proceedings aris petitioner contended that even taken at their face value, He submitted that there was r so as to deceive the priva y to her, and in that case, 420/415 for cheating was ma submitted that offence und echnology Act, involved t the own P of GST site a me and and and for sing n if no no ate no ade der wo SANJAY GUPTA 2024.07.29 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document acts, imp involved made ou 3.2 submitted nor in th done by obtaining firms by under Se because screensh However considera private r allegation was als submitted made ou according already f pursue th 3.3 FIR was personation and cheating; in the present case, offence t. With respect to offence d that neither there was any e status report it had come y the petitioner and the onl g screenshots of GST returns misusing the account. He als ection 471 IPC was also in c if forgery was done, then hot of GST returns from the G r, at the same time, it was ation that an application d respondents before the trial ns for initiating contempt pro so dismissed vide order d d that only offence that could ut against the petitioner wa gly, even an application u filed by the son of the private heir legal remedy. He concluded his argumen lodged only to harass the pe and since no cheating w under this Section was also n e under section 471 IPC allegation of forgery in the F on record that any forgery w ly allegations put-forth was (GSTR-3B) of the responden so submitted that the allegat ontradiction of other allegatio the allegation of obtaining t GST website did not hold goo also required to be taken in dated 12.10.2023 filed by t l court on the basis of sam oceedings against the petition dated 21.12.2023. He furth d at best be said to have be s under Section 195 IPC a under Section 340 CrPC w respondents before the court nt by submitting that the prese etitioner and as a counterblast was not he IR, was of nts’ ion ons the od. nto the me ner her een and was t to ent t to SANJAY GUPTA 2024.07.29 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document the appli seeking FIR No complain 3.4 following A. Legal i) ii) iii) B. Legal iv) v) C. Legal evidence it is obtai vi) vii) 4. responde ication dated 17.09.2023 bea recalling of the Order dated o. 93 dated 13.08.202 nants/respondents was quash In support of his submissio judgments to press upon the Point: FIR can be quashed a "M/s Neeharika Infrastr Maharashtra", reported a 1918 "Gurmail Singh v. Sta 2022(2) R.C.R.(Crimina "Jagdeep Singh v. State case No SLP (Crl) 3282/2 Point: Essential ingredients "Md. Ibrahim v. State o SCC 751 "Ajay Mitra v. State of M 11. l Point: Endeavour of the Co e in the case and not to be clo ined "Kuruma v. The Queen", "Magraj Patodia v. R.K. (Supreme Court) 1295. On the other hand, learne ent no. 2 & 3 submitted that aring CRM No. 39820 of 202 03.12.2021 by virtue of wh 21 registered against t hed. ons he placed reliance upon t e legal points specified below: at the stage of Investigation ructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State as 2021 AIR (Supreme Cou ate of Punjab", reported al) 61 e of Punjab and Anr", bear 2022 of offence of cheating of Bihar", reported as 2009 M.P.", reported as 2003(3) SC ourt is always to obtain the b ouded by the source from wh reported as 1955 A.C. 197 Birla", reported as 1971 A ed Senior Counsel represent GST returns of the firms of t 23, ich the the of urt) as ing 9(8) CC est ich AIR ing the SANJAY GUPTA 2024.07.29 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document answerin petitione firms or t eventual from whe that this was havi or she w that this therefore He also d registere and pre officials were fou 4.1 by the pe at the ba counsel means d could not 4.2 facie com abovesa ng respondents could not r without either the particula through the concerned author ity, the primary question whic ere these documents were fact is yet to be established ing any access to the passw was acting in collusion with an question can be answered e, this court shall not interfere drew attention of the court to ed merely on the complaint o liminary investigation was d and only when allegations m nd to be substantiated, prese He also submitted that th etitioner while getting screens ack of the complainants as me submitted that obtaining of s disclosed serious cognizable o t escape her liability. He further submitted that mmission of offence u/s 420 id fraudulent acts were com have been accessed by t ars like user-id/password of t rities access module and in th ch is required to be answered obtained. He further submitt whether the accused/petition words of the private responde ny GST authority. He submitt only through investigation a in the investigation of the ca owards the fact that FIR was n of the respondents/complaina duly conducted by the pol made by them in the compla ent FIR was registered. ese GST returns were cropp shots from the electronic dev entioned above. Learned Sen such a document through ille offences and the petitioner th in these circumstances, prim IPC was made out because t mmitted by the petitioner w the the hat d is ted ner nts ted and se. not nts ice aint ped vice nior gal hus ma the with SANJAY GUPTA 2024.07.29 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document dishones responde in the pr committe device/co Act was learned Hon’ble Chennai 4.3 similar lin here. 5. through made on 6. counsel dated 09 Ludhiana affirmed. under se later afte with the were de st intention to cause wrongful ents and their son and to fetch roceedings under DV Act. Ad ed the above said fraudule omputer, therefore, commiss made out as well in this case Senior counsel placed relia Apex Court in "C.P. Subh i", reported as (2013) 11 Sup Learned State counsel a nes and for the sake of brevi I have heard learned cou the paper book and I find behalf of the petitioner. Before adverting to the representing the parties, it is 9.05.2024 passed by learne a vide which anticipatory bai A perusal of this order show ection 46/467/468 IPC were a er further enquiry it was foun contents of the GST Return eleted by the police within loss to the complainants/priva h heavy amount of maintenan dditionally, as the petitioner h ent acts through an electro sion of offence u/s 66(D) of e. In support of his submissio nce upon the judgment of t hash v. Inspector of polic reme Court Cases 559. also made submission on t ty those are not being repeat unsel for the parties and go substance in the submissio submissions made by learn s necessary to peruse the ord ed Additional Sessions Judg il granted to the petitioner w ws that on 18.04.2024, offenc also added in the FIR, howev nd that there was no temper s and therefore, these Sectio a short span of time. Learn ate nce had onic IT ns, the ce, the ted one ons ned der ge, was ces ver, ing ons ned SANJAY GUPTA 2024.07.29 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Senior C this pos regarding on recor 471 IPC grievance “cheating obtained 7. Pro present c “41 dish to pro om dec dam is s Exp with **** 420 Wh dec des whi into eith sha 8. the judg Mitra’s c Counsel appearing for the priv ition of fact. In that eventu g the authenticity of the scre d by the petitioner and cons cannot be held to be made e of the private responden g” on the ground that scre by the petitioner in an illegal ovisions related to “cheating” context are reproduced here u 15. Cheating.—Whoever, by dec honestly induces the person so any person, or to consent th operty, or intentionally induces mit to do anything which he woul ceived, and which act or omis mage or harm to that person in b said to “cheat”. planation.—A dishonest conce hin the meaning of this section. * 0. Cheating and dishonestly i hoever cheats and thereby d ceived to deliver any property to stroy the whole or any part of ich is signed or sealed, and wh o a valuable security, shall be her description for a term which all also be liable to fine.” It is settled proposition of ment cited by the ld. Coun case (supra) as well as other vate respondents also agreed uality, there remains no dou eenshot of GST returns broug sequently offence under sect e out. Accordingly, the prima nts which remains is that eenshot of GST returns we manner. in IPC which are relevant in t under: ceiving any person, fraudulently o deceived to deliver any prope hat any person shall retain a the person so deceived to do ld not do or omit if he were not ssion causes or is likely to cau body, mind, reputation or prope ealment of facts is a decept inducing delivery of property dishonestly induces the pers o any person, or to make, alter f a valuable security, or anyth hich is capable of being conver e punished with imprisonment h may extend to seven years, a law, which is also supported nsel for the petitioner in Aj r case laws referred by him th d to ubt ght ion ary of ere the y or erty any o or t so use rty, tion y.— son r or hing rted t of and by jay hat SANJAY GUPTA 2024.07.29 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document a guilty i of cheati under: “16 che be (Se Sup AIR "Wh he und but cas pay the said with 17. 197 sho tim an am 200 reit offe on hel to d was 18. pict bra in p mo agr Ltd whe ntention (mens rea) is an ess ng. Relevant paras from this 6. A guilty intention is an esse eating. In other words 'mens rea established before he can be co ee Jeswantrai Manilal Akhaney preme Court 575). In Mahadeo R 1954 Supreme Court 724, it w Where the charge against the acc induced the complainant to derstanding that the accused w t did not pay, if the accused ha sh against delivery an intention y would not convert the transac e other hand he had no intentio

d that he would do so in order h the goods then a case of chea In Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bi 74 Supreme Court 301, it was owed that the accused had dish e the complainant parted with t offence under Section 420 Ind mount to breach of contract. In G 00(2) RCR (Criminal) 290 (S terated that guilty intention is ence of cheating and, therefore the part of the accused must b ld that in order to constitute the deceive should be in existence s offered. So far as the present appellan ture much later in July 1999, ands of A-1 were purchased by A picture at the time when the c oney in improvement of its bo reement executed with Cadbury d. (A-1). Since the appellants we en the complainant alleges to h sential ingredient of the offen s judgment are reproduced he ential ingredient of the offence a' on the part of the accused m onvicted of an offence of cheati v. The State of Bombay, AIR 19 o Prasad v. State of West Beng was held as follows : cused in under Section 420 in t o part with his goods, on would pay for the same on deliv ad at the time he promised to p to do so, the fact that he did ction into one of cheating. But if on whatsoever to pay but mer to induce the complainant or p ating would be established." ishun Kumar Surekha & Ors., A s held that unless the compla onest or fraudulent intention at the money it would not amount dian Penal Code and it may o G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad & O SC) : 2000(3) SCC 693, it w s an essential ingredient of e, to secure conviction 'mens r be established. It has been furth e offence of cheating the intent at the time when the inducem nts are concerned, they came i when various trade marks a A-6. The appellants were not at complainant claims to have sp ottling plant on the basis of y Schweppes Beverages India P ere not in picture at all at the ti have spent money in improving nce ere e of must ing. 956 gal, that the very pay not f on rely part AIR aint the t to only rs., was the rea' her tion ent into and t all ent the Pvt. ime the SANJAY GUPTA 2024.07.29 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

bot nor com bee not not if t abs com Pen

9.

its extra- inherent the proc summari Ors.", re of this jud “10 pro law exe pow rep of pre the pre gui kind

1.

W com the cas 2. ma cog ttling plant, neither any guilty in r there can possibly be any inte mplainant. No offence of cheatin en committed by the appellan tice was given to the complainan t be renewed any further after ex the allegations made in the solutely true and correct, the a mmitted any offence of cheating nal Code.” The category of cases, in -ordinary power under Article power under Section 482 Cr cess of any Court or to se sed in "State of Haryana eported as 1991(3) RCR (Cri dgment is reproduced hereun

07.

In the backdrop of the inte ovisions of the Code under Cha w enunciated by this Court in a ercise of the extraordinary powe wers under section 482 of the C produced above, we give the foll illustration wherein such pow event abuse of the process of e ends of justice, though it may ecise, clearly defined and suffi idelines or rigid formulae and to ds of cases wherein such powe Where the allegations made in mplaint, even if they are taken a eir entirety do not prima facie co se against the accused. Where the allegations in the F terials, if any, accompanying gnizable offence, justifying an ntention can be attributed to th ention on their part to deceive ng can, therefore, be said to ha ts on account of the fact tha nt that the bottling agreements xpiry of the initial term. Thus, ev complaint are accepted to appellants cannot be said to ha g as provided in section 420 Ind which High Court can exerc e 226 of the Constitution or t r.P.C. either to prevent abuse ecure the ends of justice, a & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal minal) 383 (SC) , relevant pa nder:- erpretation of the various relev apter XIV and of the principles series of decisions relating to er under Article 226 or the inher Code which we have extracted a lowing categories of cases by w wer could be exercised either any Court or otherwise to sec y not be possible to lay down a iciently channelised and inflexi o give an exhaustive list of myr r should be exercised. the First Information Report or at their face value and accepted onstitute any offence or make ou First Information Report and oth g the F.I.R. do not disclose n investigation by police offic em the ave t a will ven be ave dian cise the e of are & ara vant s of the rent and way r to ure any ible riad the d in ut a her e a cers SANJAY GUPTA 2024.07.29 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

und Ma 3. com disc aga

4.

W offe inve Ma 5. abs per gro 6. pro pro pro or t of t

7.

W and mo spit

10.

aforesaid element petitione cheat, th learned perceived heavy am also with der Section 156 (1) of the Co gistrate within the purview of Se Where the uncontroverted a mplaint and the evidence collec close the commission of any ainst the accused. Where, the allegations in the F. ence but constitute only a estigation is permitted by a po gistrate as contemplated under Where the allegations made i surd and inherently improbable rson can ever reach a just c ound for proceeding against the Where there is an express le ovisions of the Code or the conc oceeding is instituted) to the in oceedings and/or where there is the concerned Act, providing eff the aggrieved party. Where a criminal proceeding is d/or where the proceeding is ma otive for wreaking vengeance on te him due to private and person Now we can examine th d principles of law. While of “mens rea” or an intenti r obtained the documents wit his essential element of the o Senior Counsel that intentio d from the fact that the purpo mounts of maintenance in the out any sound basis. ode except under an order o ection 155(2) of the Code. allegations made in the FIR cted in support of the same do y offence and make out a ca I.R. do not constitute a cogniza a non-cognizable offence, olice officer without an order o r Section 155(2) of the Code. in the F.I.R. or complaint are on the basis of which no prud

conclusion that there is suffici accused. egal bar engrafted in any of cerned Act (under which a crimi nstitution and continuance of s a specific provision in the Co fficacious redress for the grievan manifestly attended with mala f aliciously instituted with an ulter n the accused and with a view nal grudge.” e present case in view of t Section 420 IPC requires t ion to deceive or cheat, if t thout any intention to deceive offence is missing. Argument on to deceive or cheat can ose of this exercise was to fet e proceedings under DV Act, f a or not ase able no of a so dent ient the inal the ode nce fide rior w to the the the e or by be tch is SANJAY GUPTA 2024.07.29 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

10.

1 produced regarding facts and no mater same ha of her complain the trial C 10.2 there mu loss to a were bo petitione brought i a final c petitione induced her or an apprecia 10.3 documen did not circumsta Firstly, at this stage o d before the learned trial Cou g its admissibility as well as d circumstances of the case rial right merely by putting the as merely been relied upon as claim towards maintenanc nants were under legal obligat Court for bringing true and cor Secondly, to attract an o ust be wrongful gain to one pa nother. In this case, since the ound to be produced, there r or loss to the respondent. into the consideration of the C call upon its evidentiary va r, by putting these documents the respondents in any ma ny other person as the dete tion of such and other eviden Thirdly, it is an admitt nts in question are genuine a tamper with or forge any ances the petitioner should ha only the document has be urt, which is yet to apply its m s contextual importance in t and the petitioner has gain ese documents on record as t s a piece of evidence in supp ce and even otherwise t tion to produce the same befo rrect facts on record.. offence under Section 420 IP arty and corresponding wrong e documents were genuine a e is no wrongful gain to t Documents have merely be Court and the court is yet to ta alue. It cannot be stated th s on record in Court proceedin nner to deliver any property rmination of maintenance up ce is to be made by the Cour ted position of fact that t and unaltered and the petition of it. No doubt under id ave used the process of court een ind the ned the port the ore PC, gful and the een ake hat ng, y to pon rt. the ner eal t to SANJAY GUPTA 2024.07.29 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

bring the appears unwarran these do the resp “Rajnes When th cannot b responde 10.4 “cheating made ou corollary not main the adm screensh proceedi 471 IPC 11. process, relations even aft commen however ese documents on record that she in jest to substant nted methods. But sight also ocuments were eventually bou ondents in view of judgment h v. Neha and Another”, r ese documents were suppos be said that petitioner caus ents by doing so. Therefore, in the absenc g” in the present case, no off ut. Once, it is held that cheatin of the same, offence under ntainable. As discussed in th mitted position of fact that hot of the GST Returns br ngs when compared with the is also not made out. The FIR in this case also filed not to address a genuin after the respondents' son's ter mediation. While the pe dable as she should have pu , in matrimonial disputes, pa and prove those, however tiate her claim, probably use o cannot be lost of the fact th und to be brought on record t of the Hon’ble Apex Court eported as (2021) 2 SCC 32 sed to be brought on record sed any wrongful loss to t ce of essential ingredients fence under Section 420 IPC ng is not made out, as a natu section 66(D) of IT Act is a e preceding part and in view there is no tempering in t rought on record in the co original, offence under Sect o constitutes an abuse of le ne grievance but due to strain marriage to the petitioner fai etitioner’s conduct is also n ursued her legal remedies fai arties often initiate various leg r it ed hat by t in 24. d, it the of C is ural lso w of the ourt ion gal ned led not rly, gal SANJAY GUPTA 2024.07.29 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

actions, the othe Courts s unnecess 12. cannot b backgrou regarding the accu tamperin FIR is m only few

13.

Complain were obt petitione for the p which fac

14.

Supreme made in their face is made prevent t including criminal proceeding er side without substantial should consciously avoid sary pressure on the already The ratio of the judgment i be made applicable in the und was different. In that cas g the genuineness of the do used, while in the present ng with the documents. While ade out in the present case, ingredients were not disclose In relation to the nants/Respondents that scr tained by the petitioner in an r has already filed a Compla purpose of instituting proceed ct has not been denied by the Therefore, considering the e Court in Bhajan Lal’s ca the First Information Report e value and accepted in their out in the present case. T the abuse of the process of gs, to satisfy egos and hara basis. In such circumstanc such proceedings to redu overburdened legal system. n C.P. Subhash’s case (Sup present case as the fact se, there was a serious conce ocuments brought on record case there is admittedly e no offence as alleged in t on the other hand, in that cas ed in the FIR. only grievance of t reenshot of these GST Retur n illegal manner, the son of t aint bearing No. 66649 of 202 dings under Section 340 CrP e respondents. e parameters issued by Hon' se (supra), even if allegatio t or the complaint are taken entirety, no prima facie offen Therefore, with the objective law in its humble opinion, t ass es, uce pra) ual ern by no the se, the rns the 23, C, ble ons at nce to his SANJAY GUPTA 2024.07.29 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Court fin quash th 15. & 3 also investiga quashed contents no hindr pending. Swapan that if no as any in will resul property judgmen ds itself duty bound to invoke e impugned FIR. Learned Senior Counsel a o raised an objection that th ation in the case is still goin . However, it is settled law t of FIR offences as alleged a rance in quashing such FIR Hon’ble Apex Court in "Sta Kumar Guha & Ors", repor o offence is disclosed, an inv nvestigation, in the absence lt in unnecessary harassmen may be put to jeopardy for n t is reproduced hereunder:- “64. In my opinion, the le legal position appears to be Court will not normally inter case and will permit investi be completed; if, however, offence, no investigation sh observations of the Judicial of this Court in the variou quoted, make this position a enunciated by the Judicial various decisions which I h sound principles of justice. investigation into the offenc interests of justice. If, howe investigation cannot be perm absence of any offence unnecessary harassment property may be put to jeop e its powers u/s 482 of CrPC appearing for respondent no his petition is premature as t ng on and thus FIR cannot that if from the bare perusal are not made out, then there R even if the investigation ate Of West Bengal & Ors rted as 1982 (1) SCC 561, he vestigation cannot be permitte of any offence being disclose nt to a party, whose liberty a nothing. Relevant para from t egal position is well-settled. T 2024.07.29 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

16.

property of any individual ar Court zealously guards investigation is carried on necessary materials for est which is disclosed. When a investigation in the interest collect materials for establis the offender to book. In the in a case where an offenc succeed in escaping from th may go unpunished to the and the society at large. Ju commits an offence has to punished for the same. If th investigation in a case wher the offence will go unpunish welfare of the society and th on the basis of this principle interfere with the investigatio been disclosed. The decisi relied are based on this s cases, an offence had bee settled and sound principle with an investigation into investigation and should completed, this Court had m decisions which I have reaffirming the sound princip on by Mr. Chatterjee, do not laid down as a broad propo must necessarily be permi prevented by the Court at th offence is disclosed. While as to whether an investigatio disclosed, the Judicial Comm v. Khwaja Nizam Ahmed (su v. State of Punjab (supra), J (supra) S.N. Sharma v. B clearly laid down that no in have made the observation which were relied on by Mr this proposition is not only based on fundamental pri against whom no offence is harassment by the process put his personal liberty considered sacred and sacro In view of the discussio re sacred and sacrosanct and them and protects them. n for the purpose of gather tablishing and proving an offen an offence is disclosed, a pro of justice becomes necessary shing the offence, and for bring absence of a proper investigat ce is disclosed, the offender m he consequences and the offen detriment of the cause of just ustice requires that a person w be brought to book and must he Court interferes with the pro re an offence has been disclos hed to the serious detriment of he cause of the justice suffers. I e that the Court normally does on of a case where an offence h ions on which Mr. Chatterjee h sound principle, and in all the en disclosed. Relying on the w that the Court should not interf o an offence at the stage allow the investigation to made the observations in the s earlier quoted reiterating a ples of justice. The decisions rel t lay down, as it cannot possibly osition of law that an investigat itted to continue and will not he stage of investigation, even if adverting to this specific quest on can go on even if no offence mittee in the case of King Empe upra) and this Court in R. P. Ka Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administrat Bipen Kumar Tiwari (supra) ha nvestigation can be permitted a s which I have earlier quoted a r. Sen. As I have earlier observ based on sound logic but is a inciples of justice, as a pers s disclosed, cannot be put to a s of investigation which is likely and also property which osanct into peril and jeopardy.” on made hereinabove, prese the An ring nce oper y to ging tion may der tice who be oper sed, the It is not has has ese well- fere of be said and lied y be tion be f no tion e is eror apur tion ave and and ved also son any y to are ent SANJAY GUPTA 2024.07.29 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

petition i P/1), re Commiss arising th 17. stand dis

22.07.

20 sanjay

is allowed and FIR No. 003 egistered at Police Station sionerate Ludhiana including herefrom are quashed. Pending miscellaneous a sposed of.

024

(

Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable ? 5 dated 16.03.2024 (Annexu n Division 5, District Pol g all consequent proceedin application(s), if any, shall a

HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE ed ? Yes/No Yes/No ure ice ngs lso SANJAY GUPTA 2024.07.29 09:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity 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.