MUKESH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The informant-Brijesh Kharbanda made a complaint to the police asserting that a firm was established in the name and style of MM Square by the petitioner-Mukesh Sharma and the informant-Brijesh Kharbanda on 3/12/2019. Both the partners agreed to abide by all the terms and conditions of the deed. Both the partners agreed to invest 50% amount in the business of the firm. Mukesh Sharma was empowered to purchase the land and carry out the construction and other business activities. The informant invested ?1.35 Crore. The construction started in the year 2020. The petitioner was given the work of development of the project. The informant suspected that the payments were being made to un-named building material suppliers, contractors and labourers. He noticed that a large amount of cash was being withdrawn by Mukesh Sharma from the account of the firm. He visited the project site and found that minimum work was carried out by the petitioner. He could not find account books and other relevant documents. He requisitioned books of account and balance sheets of the firm but his request was not considered by the petitioner. He deputed Charan Singh Arora to supervise and inspect the daily activities. Charan Singh and Mukesh Sharma used to share the same room, as the rest of the rooms were being offered for homestay purposes. Charan Singh caught Mukesh Sharma red-handed while he was making the invoices in his own hands with the help of Narender Thakur-contractor. The informant found that Mukesh Sharma had prepared false bill books. Most of the bills were issued under the handwriting of the petitioner. Some of the fake books were obtained under the name of Ajay Kumar, Ashu traders and Kundan Lal Radhakrishnan. The bills were not genuine and on enquiry, it was found that no material was purchased from these firms. All payments were shown to have been made in cash for which, the petitioner was not authorized. The construction quality was also found to be poor. No technical/qualified person was involved. Upkar Singh, Chartered Accountant of the firm gave a few copies of the bank account with the marking of vendors with pen and few invoices. These were found to be fake. Mukesh Sharma provided photocopies of invoices and vouchers through WhatsApp. Original tax returns were also not shown. The maximum investment was made by the informant. He also received a notice from Baljeet Singh regarding the payment of liabilities outstanding to him. Baljeet Singh had not provided any services. These acts constituted fraud, misrepresentation and forgery. The police registered FIR No.93 of 2023 dtd. 19/8/2023 for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 403, 405, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Sec. 120 B of IPC at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P.

(2.) The petitioner filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail. It was asserted that the FIR had been lodged on distorted facts. The petitioner never committed any breach of trust. He never forged any documents. All payments were made for the genuine supply of the material. Payments were also made to the persons, who had rendered the services for the project. The complaint has been filed at the instance of Mohit Satija, brother-in-law of the informant. The petitioner started the construction work, as per the terms and conditions. He submitted the income tax return showing the assets and liabilities. The informant started harassing the petitioner on one pretext or the other. The petitioner made complaints against the informant and his brother-in-law but no action was taken. The petitioner was pressurized to give one crore to the informant and hand over his residential flat and vacant land to the informant. The petitioner did not agree to the same and multiple FIRs were lodged against him. The informant also got issued a notice through his counsel for the appointment of the Arbitrator as per the clauses of the partnership deed. The notice was duly replied by the petitioner through his counsel. It is a civil dispute between the parties, which has been given the colour of criminal litigation. There is a considerable delay in reporting the matter. The petitioner is 66 years old and any coercive action by the police will curtail his liberty; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

(3.) The police filed a status report reproducing the contents of the FIR. It was asserted that the informant produced the bills and other documents, which were seized by the police. Chartered Accountant-Upkar Singh made a statement that the petitioner was looking after the construction of MM Squares. The petitioner used to make available the bills and the cash vouchers. The bills of Ashu Traders and M/s Kundan Mal Radhakrishnan were verified. Both of them denied that the original bills pertained to their firm. Ajay Kumar stated that he did not know how to write;hence, he used to hand over the blank bills to the petitioner and the petitioner used to fill them. The false bills worth ?17,06,312/- were recovered, which were returned by the petitioner. The petitioner is to be interrogated to determine the extent of the amount misappropriated by him; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.