Rakesh Hanuman Prasad vs. State Of Haryana And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Rakesh Hanuman Prasad, approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. On December 10, 2021, the petitioner volunteered to deposit half of the disputed amount with the GST authorities, subject to final adjustment. Subsequently, the petitioner deposited Rs. 1.25 crores, representing half of the disputed amount, and joined the investigation as per the Court's previous order. The petitioner also fully cooperated with the investigation and provided all necessary documents to the investigating agency. The State of Haryana, through its counsel, confirmed that the petitioner had joined the investigation, cooperated fully, and was not required for custodial interrogation.

Held

The Court considered the submissions made by both parties. The petitioner's counsel highlighted the petitioner's voluntary deposit of Rs. 1.25 crores, which constituted half of the disputed amount, and his full cooperation with the investigation process as directed by the Court on December 10, 2021. The State's counsel corroborated these submissions, confirming the petitioner's cooperation and stating that custodial interrogation was not necessary. In light of the petitioner's compliance with the Court's interim order and the State's acknowledgment thereof, the Court found no impediment to making the interim order absolute. The Court's decision was based on the petitioner's adherence to the conditions set forth, which included financial deposit and active participation in the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the interim order dated December 10, 2021, directing the petitioner to deposit half of the disputed amount and join the investigation, should be made absolute, considering the petitioner's compliance and cooperation. The petitioner argued that he had fulfilled the conditions stipulated by the Court by depositing half of the disputed amount (Rs. 1.25 crores) and fully cooperating with the investigation. He contended that his actions demonstrated his willingness to abide by the Court's directives and resolve the matter. The respondent, State of Haryana, through its counsel, acknowledged the petitioner's compliance. They confirmed that the petitioner had joined the investigation and fully cooperated, and that custodial interrogation was not required. The State did not raise any objections to the petitioner's submissions regarding compliance.