CRM-M-43704-2025 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

6 CRM-M-43704-2025 (O&M)

Reserved on : 29.08.2025

Pronounced on : 16.09.2025

Manoj Kumar

..... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

..... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Argued by: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Arpandeep Naruala, Advocate and

Mr. Piyush Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the complainant

and Mr. Rohit Rana, Advocate.

(through hybrid mode)

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J.

1. For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406,

420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the FIR No.363

dated 20.06.2025 has been lodged in Police Station Samalkha, District

Panipat. Since the petitioner is apprehending arrest in the abovementioned

case, and his application for anticipatory bail has been dismissed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge Panipat vide order dated 07.07.2025, the

petitioner is seeking for anticipatory bail, by virtue of present petition. The

petitioner is claiming the abovesaid concession by invoking the provisions

CRM-M-43704-2025 (O&M) 2

enshrined under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023.

2. Succinctly, the background of the case emanating from record

is that the FIR in this case came into being in view of a complaint moved by

the complainant, namely Ritesh Kumar, hereinafter being referred to as

‘complainant’ only. In the abovementioned complaint, the complainant has

alleged that he has been defrauded by the petitioner and other co-accused, by

making false claims and using forged documents, i.e. a fake letter head and

thus, money of complainant has been grabbed.

3. According to the complainant, Lacchiram Verma was

previously known to him, and that in August, 2022, Lacchiram Verma told

him that Anand Pal, and his co-accused, namely Vijay Rathi, Manoj Kumar

(petitioner) and Narender Chaudhary were the license-holder for mining of

sand in Yamuna river for the last many years. As per complainant,

Lacchiram Verma also told that Vijay Rathi & others were not having

sufficient financial resources to meet the expenses and therefore, they were

looking for partner in the auction of mining lease. As per complainant,

Lacchiram Verma offered partnership to the complainant, and therefore, the

complainant spoke to his partners, namely Kuldeep & Ravinder and

thereafter, conveyed to Lacchiram Verma that they were willing for mining

work in Yamuna river as suggested by him.

4. It was further alleged by the complainant that at the time of

filing of application for online bidding regarding mining sand in Yamuna

CRM-M-43704-2025 (O&M) 3

River in Village Chhaproli, District Baghpat, an online application was

submitted by the complainant and when Anand Pal and other accused came

to know about the abovesaid application, they approached the complainant at

Panipat and proposed that instead of going for separate bidding, they should

work as partners. As per complainant, the bid was made on 23.12.2022 and

on that day, accused Anand Pal showed a document to the complainant and

his partners Kuldeep and Ravinder, with regard to participation of Manoj

Kumar (petitioner) in that bid and informed the complainant and his

partners, that Manoj Kumar (petitioner) was the proprietor of ‘M/s Royal

Construction Company’.

5. According to complainant, it was also told that another

company, i.e. ‘Apollo Company’, which was closed in the year 2018, had a

valid environmental clearance and since both the firms belonged to Manoj

Kumar (petitioner), the environmental clearance of ‘Apollo Company’

would be transferred to ‘M/s Royal Construction Company’ and it would be

done without any delay, which would expedite the resumption of mining

work. As per complainant, they were told that they would secure auction in

the next two bids at ‘Badarkha’ and ‘Gauripur’, District Baghpat, and that

they would be working as a group with 15% share of the complainant in the

mining business.

6. The complainant also alleged that finding the proposal

lucrative, as it would have reduced expenses, he accepted the proposal and

in the abovementioned circumstances the bid for sand mines of ‘Chhaproli’

CRM-M-43704-2025 (O&M) 4

was released in the name of M/s Royal Construction Company. According to

complainant, he was asked to deposit Rs.50,000/- in the name of Consultant

Yashbir Singh on 29.01.2023, for transfer of environmental clearance

certificate, and thereafter, Manoj Kumar (petitioner), Anand Pal, Vijay Rathi

and Narender told them that for want of legal partnership of the complainant

in ‘M/s Royal Construction Company’, the money could not have been

transferred from the account of complainant and therefore, the complainant

was advised to transfer 15% share in ‘Chhaproli Mine’ worth Rs.16,52,400/-

and 15% share in ‘Kotna Mine’ worth Rs.25,10,494/- into the account of

petitioner’s another firm, namely ‘Manoj Kumar Contractor’. As per

complainant, having faith and trust in the accused, they followed the

instructions and the money was duly transferred into the account of firm,

namely ‘Manoj Kumar Contractor’. It was further stated by the complainant

that they were offered partnership in the stocks to be maintained in the wake

of ensuing monsoon season and for that purpose, a sum of Rs.14,00,000/-, in

cash, was paid by them, as it was told by the accused that they had already

spent a sum of Rs.1.50 crores in seeking permission and also towards

maintaining stock, construction of roads, entering contract with farmers and

setting up other infrastructure. As per complainant, they had paid

Rs.14,00,000/- in cash to become member in the stock also.

7. In addition to above, the complainant also stated that the

accused Manoj (petitioner) demanded more money from them, on the pretext

that the cost of environmental clearance would be Rs.45,00,000/-. As per

complainant at that juncture, he (complainant) asked for written agreement

CRM-M-43704-2025 (O&M) 5

and for that purpose, Manoj Kumar (petitioner) called the complainant to his

residence in JP Green Society at Noida. According to complainant, there it

was told by the accused Manoj Kumar (petitioner) that his money had stuck

in another business and therefore, he was in need of money to secure

environmental clearance. According to complainant, in view of above

demand, a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- was transferred by him in the account of

petitioner’s firm, i.e. ‘Manoj Kumar Contractor’ on 21.02.2023. As per

complainant, despite abovesaid payment, written agreement was not

executed and therefore, he insisted again and pressed hard for the agreement,

which was got drafted by the accused Vijay Rathi and thereafter all the

accused came to Panipat and a written agreement was signed by the

complainant on one side, and Manoj Kumar (petitioner), Anand Pal and

Vijay Rathi on other side. According to complainant, on 21.03.2023, the

agreement, which was duly signed by the accused, could not be got attested

from Notary as on the day of execution of agreement, petitioner-Manoj

Kumar was in a hurry and therefore, it was got attested subsequently, i.e. on

06.03.2024.

8. As per complainant, later-on, i.e. on 04.04.2023, on the call of

Manoj Kumar (petitioner), they transferred Rs.10 lacs in the account of

petitioner’s firm, ‘Manoj Kumar Contractor’ and in addition to above

handed over Rs.20 lacs, in cash, at his Noida’s flat. According to

complainant, at that point of time, petitioner-Manoj Kumar had assured that

the mining work would start soon. The complainant further stated that

petitioner-Manoj Kumar had requested to transfer Rs.20 lacs to his firm,

CRM-M-43704-2025 (O&M) 6

namely ‘Manoj Kumar Contractor’ and assured that he would return the

abovesaid amount to the complainant in cash. According to complainant,

believing the abovementioned words of accused Manoj Kumar (petitioner),

they further transferred Rs.20 lacs into the account of the firm, namely

‘Manoj Kumar Contractor’ on 10.04.2023, but petitioner did not return the

cash amount and thereafter, started ignoring their calls.

9. It was further alleged by the complainant that due to

abovementioned changed behaviour of petitioner-Manoj Kumar, they got

suspicious and therefore, made enquiries about ‘M/s Royal Construction

Company’ from GST Department, where they came to know that the firm

‘M/s Royal Construction Company’ was registered in the name of Mr.

Dayachand Badgodi and not the accused Manoj Kumar (petitioner).

According to complainant, the accused Manoj Kumar (petitioner), Anand

Pal, Vijay Rathi and Narender Chaudhary had entered into a conspiracy to

defraud the complainant and for that purpose, they had fraudulently claimed

themselves to be the owner of the firm ‘M/s Royal Construction Company’

by preparing a fake letter head of the said firm and depicting therein ‘Manoj

Kumar’ as proprietor thereof. The complainant further alleged that the

agreement for sharing the mines was also fraudulently executed to usurp the

money of complainant and this way, all the accused, including the petitioner,

committed the abovementioned offence.

10. Heard.

CRM-M-43704-2025 (O&M) 7

11. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner is innocent, and a victim of framing of a false case lodged at the

instance of complainant party. According to learned counsel for the

petitioner, the complaint is mala fide and hit by limitation as with regard to

alleged transaction in the year 2023, last transaction being 10.04.2023, the

complaint was filed on 01.04.2025, i.e. after a gap of almost 2 years. As per

learned counsel for the petitioner, the abovementioned delay in lodging the

complaint itself makes it abundantly clear that this is an afterthought step

taken by the complainant, and a measure adopted by the complainant to arm-

twist the petitioner and his business partners.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that in

the present case, the claim of the complainant is that on enquiry from GST

Department, it was revealed that the proprietor of firm ‘M/s Royal

Construction Company’ is Mr. Dayachand Badgodi, and not Manoj Kumar.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, once in the record of GST

Department Mr. Dayachand Badgodi was recorded as proprietor of ‘M/s

Royal Construction Company’, it was expected from the complainant that

before entering into agreement with ‘M/s Royal Construction Company’ or

Manoj Kumar, they should have made enquiries from the abovementioned

Department. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, it fails to convince a

prudent mind that for more than a year, without any enquiries from

concerned authorities, huge amount would have been paid by the

complainant to the petitioner and his business partners.

CRM-M-43704-2025 (O&M) 8

13. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that

the entire transaction was commercial in nature and therefore, is civil in

nature and the basic ingredients of the criminal offences are not fulfilled. As

per learned counsel for the petitioner, complainant willingly participated in a

business venture after repeated negotiations and voluntarily transferred

funds to firms related to Manoj Kumar over a span of months, and that there

is no entrustment of any money to the petitioner and no criminal intent on

his part. He further argued that earlier an enquiry was conducted by the

Economic Offences Wing, Panipat and it was categorically concluded that

no criminal offence was made out against the petitioner. It has been further

argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that otherwise also there is no

attribution to the petitioner that any money was paid to the petitioner and

therefore, the petitioner should not have been arrayed as an accused in the

present case.

14. In addition to above, it has also been argued by learned counsel

for the petitioner that there is ample documentary evidence showing number

of transactions between the firms of Manoj Kumar (petitioner) and the firms

of complainant, and that in fact, there is a dispute between the parties with

regard to settlement of accounts, and that in order to pressurize the

petitioner, and arm-twist the petitioner & his business partners, a false story

with regard to creation of false document and alleged fraud has been

cooked-up. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, since dispute

between the parties is with regard to accounting and payment of money, i.e.

of civil nature, and otherwise also, the entire evidence to be collected by the

CRM-M-43704-2025 (O&M) 9

investigating agency is documentary in nature, custodial interrogation of the

petitioner is not required and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the

benefit of anticipatory bail.

15. The abovementioned arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioner have been controverted by learned State Counsel, being assisted

by learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Written reply, too, has been

placed on record by the State. As per learned State Counsel, the

investigation of the present case has been conducted by ASI Samunder,

Police Post Samalkha, District Panipat, and that he analyzed all the relevant

documents and found that accused Manoj Kumar (petitioner) had wrongly

projected himself to be the proprietor of ‘M/s Royal Construction

Company’, and that under false pretext he entered into a partnership

agreement, dated 21.03.2023, with the complainant.

16. As per learned State Counsel, the accused Vijay Rathi was a

witness to the abovementioned agreement and that the account books

(ledger) of the accused have also been examined by the above-named ASI

and that he has found that a sum of Rs.1,12,12,988/-, of the complainant, is

due towards Manoj Kumar (petitioner), the alleged proprietor of ‘M/s Royal

Construction Company’. According to learned State Counsel, after the

abovementioned initial investigation, the case has been transferred to CIA

Panipat on 30.06.2025, and that during the course of investigation by CIA,

bank statements of the accounts belonging to the complainant have been

secured and thereafter, the copy of Letter of Intent, copy of Letter of

CRM-M-43704-2025 (O&M) 10

Authorization submitted by ‘M/s Royal Construction Company’ in the office

of Mining Department have been collected, by the Investigating Officer.

17. According to learned State Counsel, the abovementioned

documents reveals that proprietor of ‘M/s Royal Construction Company’,

namely Dayachand Badgodi, had authorized the accused Anand Pal to sign,

submit and receive all necessary documents, deeds of agreement,

undertakings, affidavits, correspondence etc. with the Mining Department,

Government and other authorities, Banks and GST Office. As per learned

State Counsel, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer

has also collected a Letter of Intent from the complainant, which was forged

by depicting Manoj Kumar (petitioner) as proprietor of ‘M/s Royal

Construction Company’.

18. It has been further argued by learned State Counsel, being

assisted by learned counsel for the respondent No.2, that the accused Manoj

Kumar had falsely portrayed himself to be a partner of ‘M/s Royal

Construction Company’, and thus, he was successful in wining over the

confidence of complainant, who paid money to the accused Manoj Kumar

and his firm. As per learned State Counsel, this way, the petitioner and his

co-accused have caused wrongful loss to the complainant and his business

partners. According to learned State Counsel, huge amount is due towards

the petitioner & his co-accused and that for the purpose of digging out truth

behind the creation of false documents, custodial interrogation of the

petitioner and his co-accused is of utmost importance. In addition to above,

CRM-M-43704-2025 (O&M) 11

learned State Counsel has also contended that the request of petitioner for

anticipatory bail is devoid of merit.

19. The record has been perused carefully and the arguments,

addressed on behalf of both the parties, have been thoroughly considered.

20. In the present case, if the factual matrix is analyzed, it

transpires that:

‘(i) there is no dispute qua the fact that the complainant and the

accused, both, were involved in mining business. The

complainant and his business partners were doing business

in the territory of Haryana, whereas the accused and his

partners were doing the same business on another bank of

Yamuna River in District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh.

(ii) there was an agreement with regard to joint business of

complainant and accused and for that purpose, complainant

had invested money, and duly transferred the amount in the

account of the firm of accused Manoj Kumar.

(iii) it is also an undisputed fact that the proprietor of ‘M/s

Royal Construction Company’, as per GST record, is

Dayachand Badgodi.’

21. In the present case, one of the significant fact to be noted is that

as per evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, the accused Anand

Pal was authorized by the proprietor of ‘M/s Royal Construction Company’,

namely Dayachand Badgodi, to sign, submit and receive all necessary

documents, deeds for agreement, undertakings, affidavits, correspondence

etc. with the Mining Department, Bank, GST Office and Government

CRM-M-43704-2025 (O&M) 12

authorities. The abovementioned fact dugged out by the Investigating

Officer makes it abundantly clear that the accused Anand Pal was having the

absolute command and control over the business of ‘M/s Royal Construction

Company’, being authorized representative of its proprietor Mr. Dayachand

Badgodi. If that was a situation, the question arises that what was the need

for the accused to falsely project Manoj Kumar (petitioner) as proprietor of

‘M/s Royal Construction Company’. However, no reasonable explanation

for the same has been furnished. Since the business of ‘M/s Royal

Construction Company’ was in the command and control of Anand Pal, he

was in a position to enter into all types of business deals/agreements on

behalf of ‘M/s Royal Construction Company’, and thus, there was no need to

falsely project Manoj (petitioner) as proprietor of ‘M/s Royal Construction

Company’. The abovementioned fact raises a reasonable doubt with regard

to claim of the complainant.

22. In addition to above, this fact cannot be ignored that on the face

of it, the contents of complaint, vis-à-vis, reply submitted by the State makes

it clear that the complainant and accused, who were doing business in

partnership, under an understanding, have a dispute with regard to settlement

of account and payment of liabilities to each other. The abovesaid dispute is

essentially a dispute of civil nature and this contention of learned counsel for

the petitioner cannot be brushed aside that a civil dispute has been given the

colour of criminal nature.

CRM-M-43704-2025 (O&M) 13

23. Be that as it may, one of the most significant fact to be taken

into consideration is that the entire evidence, which is supposed to be

collected by the investigating agency, is documentary in nature and as per

reply submitted by the investigating agency, such documents have already

been collected by the investigating agency. For the sake of arguments, even

if some document is left to be recovered, that can be done in future during

the course of investigation, by issuing a direction to the petitioner to

cooperate in the investigation.

24. In the present case, one of the relevant aspects to be taken into

consideration is that the FIR has been lodged for the commission of an

offence, which is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate and there is

nothing on record to show that denial of custodial interrogation to the

investigating agency will cause any harm to the investigation of the present

case.

25. With regard to fact situation which has cropped-up in the

present case, it is relevant to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in the case of ‘Vesa Holding Vs. State of Kerala, 2015 8 SCC 293, has

observed that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of

cheating. According to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the breach of

contract would amount to cheating only where there is any deception, played

at the very inception.

26. With regard to plea, taken by the accused while seeking for

concession of anticipatory bail, the observations made in the case of

CRM-M-43704-2025 (O&M) 14

‘Ravinder Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2010 1 SCC 684 are

also relevant. In the abovementioned case, it has been ruled by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India that the defence put forward by the accused cannot

be obliterated at the stage of anticipatory bail, and that, if the dispute is

purely of civil nature, that cannot be given a colour of criminal case.

27. In CRM-M-52617-2022, titled as ‘Deepak Daggar & Ors. Vs.

State of Haryana & Anr.’, this Court has observed that every breach of

contract cannot give rise to criminal offence and that many a times, several

transactions may not contain ingredients of criminal offence. It has been

held in the abovementioned case that in such cases, even the FIR can be

quashed.

28. In the present case, it is relevant to mention here that one of the

dimension of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner has been

that the enquiry, which led to registration of FIR in Police Station Samalkha,

is the second enquiry and that in the earlier enquiry, conducted in Police

Station Chandni Bagh, no criminality against the actions of petitioner had

been established. In this regard, the observations made by this Court in

CRM-M-5292-2024, titled as ‘Surinder Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab

& Ors.’, are relevant, wherein it has been observed that repeated enquiries in

the same issues are not permissible.

29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal

No.2963 of 2025, titled as ‘Shailesh Kumar Singh @Shailesh R. Singh Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.’, has held that to constitute an offence of

CRM-M-43704-2025 (O&M) 15

cheating, there has to be something more than prima facie case on record,

indicating that intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right

from the inception.

30. On the touchstone of abovementioned legal propositions, if the

facts and circumstances of the present case are analyzed, it transpires that in

the present case, there were multiple transactions with regard to payment of

money between the complainant & the accused, and the dispute between the

parties seems to be of accounting which is purely a dispute of civil nature.

As already observed above, the denial of permission of custodial

interrogation of the petitioner, to the investigating agency, will not cause any

harm to the process of investigation in the present case, and therefore,

without commenting anything on the merits of the case, it is hereby held that

the present petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the petitioner is hereby

held entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail, subject to the following

conditions:

a) that the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when

required by the investigating agency;

b) that he will not left the country without prior permission of the

Court;

c) that he will not influence the witness or interfere in the process

of collection of evidence by the investigating agency; and

d) that he will abide by the conditions as specified under Section

482(2) of the BNSS.

CRM-M-43704-2025 (O&M) 16

31. In terms of abovementioned conditions, the present petition

stands allowed, accordingly, with a direction that in the event of his arrest,

the petitioner shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing

bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer.

32. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)

JUDGE

SEPTEMBER 16, 2025

Gaurav Thakur

Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No