Veenu Taneja And Another vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioners, Veenu Taneja and another, filed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. following FIR No. 83 dated 23.02.2021, registered at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B of the IPC. The FIR alleged that the petitioners committed fraud and breach of trust by avoiding payments after receiving a large quantity of gold jewellery and ornaments on pretext of purchase. The petitioners claimed they were falsely implicated, alleging that the complainant and his wife stole blank signed cheques from Petitioner No. 1, which were later misused. They also pointed to a pending complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and their own complaint against the complainant. The lower court dismissed their anticipatory bail plea, deeming the allegations serious and custodial interrogation necessary. The High Court reviewed the case, considering documents filed by the complainant, including a diary account, bills with GST amounts and PAN numbers, WhatsApp conversations, and phone call recordings.

Held

The High Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. The Court found that the documents filed by the complainant, including the diary account, bills with GST amounts and PAN numbers, WhatsApp conversations, and phone call recordings, were largely consistent with the allegations in the FIR. Specifically, the diary entries, some bearing Petitioner No. 1's signatures acknowledging receipt or payments due, supported the claim that initial payments were made but subsequently avoided. The bills containing GST amounts and the petitioners' PAN numbers further indicated that the allegations might not be unfounded. The Court also found the petitioners' explanation regarding stolen cheques to be unusual and not the conduct expected of a reasonable person. Considering the cogent allegations and the need for actual truth to be elicited, the Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary. Therefore, the Court found no reason to differ from the lower court's decision to dismiss the anticipatory bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations of cheating, fraud, and breach of trust, and the evidence presented by both sides? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contended they were falsely implicated. They argued that blank signed cheques were stolen from Petitioner No. 1, leading to a police complaint and stop payment instructions. They highlighted that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, based on similar facts, was pending, and the court in that case had noted that investigation by police might not be beneficial. They asserted that custodial interrogation was not required as the case was based on documentary evidence and nothing was to be recovered. They also claimed the complainant had acknowledged payments were cleared initially and that the current FIR was an abuse of process. Respondent's (State/Complainant) Arguments: The respondent relied on documentary evidence, including a diary account showing items delivered and amounts due, bills with GST and PAN numbers, WhatsApp conversations, and phone call recordings. These documents, they argued, corroborated the FIR allegations and indicated that the petitioners had acknowledged liabilities and even melted some jewellery. The lower court had found the allegations serious and custodial interrogation necessary for a fair investigation.