Mahinder Kaur And Anr vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. The primary issue was the authenticity of the e-way bill. While the petitioners claimed GST was paid, they could not deny the electronically generated document (Annexure R-2/5) showing the e-way bill dated 04.01.2020 was rejected by the complainant on 05.01.2020. The Court found it inexplicable why GST would be deposited on a rejected bill. The reasoning was that the petitioners prima facie appeared to have fabricated the e-way bill and, to create evidence, filed GST returns on a bill that was rejected by the complainant the very next day. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. No specific operative directions were issued beyond dismissing the petition.

Facts

The petitioners, Mahinder Kaur and another, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 183 dated 01.08.2020, registered under Sections 420, 467, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Saha, District Ambala. The FIR was lodged based on a fake e-way bill generated for Rs. 1,79,200/-. The petitioners' counsel argued that Rs. 9,600/- was paid as GST, negating the claim of a fake e-way bill. They also noted a separate complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for dishonored cheques. The State's status report indicated the GST payment was made to create false evidence regarding dishonored cheques, and the e-way bill was fabricated even though goods were not supplied. The complainant's reply stated the e-way bill was rejected on 05.01.2020, making GST deposit on it irrelevant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the e-way bill generated by the petitioners was fake, in light of the GST payment, under Sections 420, 467, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860? The petitioners contended that the payment of GST on the e-way bill indicated its authenticity and that a separate complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was already filed for the dishonored cheques. They argued that the GST payment demonstrated no intent to defraud. The respondent (State of Haryana) argued that the GST payment was made to create false evidence for the dishonored cheque case, and the e-way bill was fabricated despite no goods being supplied. The complainant further asserted that the e-way bill was rejected on 05.01.2020, making any subsequent GST deposit on it invalid and irrelevant.