Sumit Sharma Vs State of Haryana

The petition in hand has b e en filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (he r einafter referred to as ‘Cr.P. C .’) seeking q uashing of FIR No.2636 date d 14.12.2023 registered at Po l ice Station Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram for o f fences punishable under Secti o ns 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 o f the IPC and all consequen t ial proceedi n gs arising therefrom, qua the pe t itioners.

¶16

Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the

¶17

lis in han d is adumbrated, thus:

¶18

(i) The petitioners, who are p e rmanent residents of Kolkata are residing in Kolkata for more than 45 ye a rs. They were former Director s of Dee Kart a vya Finance Limited and had been arraigned as accused in two cases un d er Section 138 of the Nego t iable Instruments Act, 1881, i.e. NACT/1 7 893/2020 and NACT/17281/2020, pending before the lear n ed JMFC, G u rugram, filed by Moneywise F i nancial Services Pvt. Ltd.

¶19

AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.17 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-6979-2024 2

¶21

(ii) In compliance with the orde r dated 18.09.2023 in the aforesaid cases, th e petitioners appeared before th e learned trial Court on 14.12.2 0 23 and furni s hed personal bonds to the sum of ₹50,000/- each. However, t h eir local co u nsel engaged by them, coun s elled them to arrange two l o cal sureties t o secure the bail. Being outside r s, the petitioners could not arra n ge sureties t h emselves and upon the assur a nce of their counsel, they relied upon tw o persons, introduced by their counsel, namely Hari Singh a nd Yashpal S ingh.

¶22

(iii) Thereafter, the bail bonds a l ongwith the Aadhaar cards of the said sure t ies were furnished before the l e arned trial Court. However, u p on verificati o n and scrutiny, the said docu m ents were found to be forged. T he learned t r ial Court, vide order dated 14. 1 2.2023 (Annexure P-2), held that the sureti e s disclosed they had no person a l acquaintance with the petitio n ers and that the documents were prepared by one Santosh. Thereafter, the learned t r ial Court, while taking cogniz a nce of the forgery, directed act i on against t h e aforesaid two sureties and d irected the concerned SHO un d er Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to investigate th e matter. Concurrently, the lear n ed trial Cou r t permitted the petitioners to fur n ish fresh personal bonds. (iv) Based on these set of all e gations, the impugned FIR w as registere d against the sureties as well as t he petitioners under Sections 1 2 0- B, 419, 4 20, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Thereafter, the investigation w as undertak e n and challan (chargesheet) wa s presented by the Police. (v) It is in the above factual backdrop, the petition in hand h as come up f or adjudication before this Cou r t. 3. Learned counsel for the p etitioners has iterated that the AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.17 16:55I attest to the accuracy andpetitione r s have neither any acquaintanc e with sureties namely Hari Si n gh integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-6979-2024 3

¶24

and Yas h pal Singh and nor any role in t he preparation of forged Aadhaar cards. Le a rned counsel has further iterated that no benefit can be derived by the petiti o ners from the forged documen t s since their bail applications were rejected. L earned counsel has further su b mitted that the learned trial C o urt itself rec o rded the bona fides of the petit i oners by accepting their ignora n ce of the fo r gery and nowhere observed t h at the petitioners’ have furnis h ed forged d o cuments of their own. Learned counsel has further submitted that the char g e-sheet does not disclose an y link or conspiracy between the petitione r s and the alleged fake sureties. Learned counsel has asserted that the FIR against the petitioners is a cl e ar abuse of process of law a nd continuat i on of proceedings would resul t in miscarriage of justice. On the basis of a f oresaid submissions, the grant o f petition in hand, is entreated f or. 4. The State of Haryana, upon being called upon, has filed re p ly dated 30.08.2024 by way of affidavit o f Surinder Singh, HPS, Assistant Commiss i oner of Police, City, Gurugram and status report dated 09.05.2 0 25 by way o f affidavit of Abhilaksh Joshi, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, C i ty, Gurugram. Learned State c ounsel, while raising submissi o ns in tande m with the said reply and status r eport, has opposed the petition by arguing that the forged documents we r e submitted by the petitioners in relation t o their bail and hence they ca n not escape the liability. Lear n ed counsel h as iterated that the conspiracy c an be inferred from the conduc t of parties a n d does not always require di r ect evidence. It has been furt h er argued t h at the plea relating to defence o f ignorance and reliance upon the counsel; i s a matter of trial and cannot be a ground for quashing at t his stage. O n the strength of these submissions, the dismissal of the instant

¶25

AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.17 16:55I attest to the accuracy andpetition i s prayed for. integrity of this document

¶26

CRM-M-6979-2024 4

¶27

I have heard learned couns e l for the parties and perused the record ca r efully.

¶28

The enduring plight of an accused person, particularly o ne compelle d to traverse vast distances to a ppear in criminal proceedings a nd satisfy c o nditions of bail, remains a regrettable lacuna in our legal syst e m. This unf o rtunate state of affairs is exac e rbated by the archaic practice of courts de m anding ‘local surety(s)’ as a prerequisite for release of bail. T his practice, a vestige of a bygone era, regre t tably persists in many parts of the country, d espite being subjected to judi c ial opprobrium for decades. T he Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Moti Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, 1978(4) SCC 47, rendered as far as back in the year 1978, unequivo c ally condemned this practice, r e levant whereof reads as under:

¶29

“To add insult to injury, the ma g istrate has demanded sureties from his own district. (We assume the a llegation in the petition). What i s a Malayalee, Kannadiga, Tamilia n or Andhra to do if arrested for alle g ed misappropriation or them or c r iminal trespass in Bastar , Port B l air, PortBlair Pahalgaam or Chan d ni Chowk? He cannot have sur e ties owning properties in these distant places. He may not know any one t h ere and might have come in a batch o r to seek a job or in a morcha . Judi c ial disruption of Indian unity is sure s t achieved by such provincial aller g ies. What law prescribes sureties fr o m outside or non- regional lingui s tic, some times legalistic. application s ? What law prescribes the geograph i cal discrimination implicit in asking f or sureties from the court district? T his tendency takes many forms, sometimes, geographic , sometimes lingui s tic, some times legalistic. Art 14 protects all Indians qua Indians, within the territory of India. Art 350 san c tions representation to any autho r ity. including a court, for redress o f grievances in any language used in the Union of India . Equality befor e the law implies that even a vakala t or affirmation made in any State la n guage according to the law in that S t ate must be accepted everywhere in t he territory of India save where a v a lid legislation to the contrary exists. Otherwise, an adivasi will be unfre e in Free India, and likewise many other minorities. This divagation has become necessary to still the j udicial beginnings, and to inhibit the

¶30

AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.17 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

CRM-M-6979-2024 5

¶32

process of making Indians aliens in their own homeland. Swaraj is made of united stuff.”

¶33

6.1. Mandating furnishing of a ‘local surety’ from an individual who is a n ative or resident of another dis t rict/State is not merely a logist i cal inconven i ence; it is a profound assau l t on his fundamental rights a nd tantamou n t to imposition of an unduly o n erous condition, which is, in its e lf, a de fact o denial of the right to bail –– w h ich ought to be accompanied by a practical m eans of securing it, not by ins u rmountable hurdles. It creates an unnecess a ry dichotomy, where an indivi d ual from one part of the Countr y is treated di f ferently from another, simply b y the dint of his or her residenc e . 6.2. This pervasive malady of d emanding local sureties was o n ce again brought to the fore and deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Cour t in Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, 2024(10) SCC 685, relevant wher e of

¶34

reads thu s :

¶35

“xxxxxxxxxxxx With a view to ameliorate the problems a numbe r of directions are sought. We h a ve examined the directions which we reproduce hereinafter with certai n modification: xxx xxx xxx xxx 7) One of the reasons which delays the release of the accused/convicts is the insistence upon surety. It is suggested that in such cases, the courts may not impose the condition of local surety.”

¶36

Ergo, this continued insiste n ce on ‘local surety(s)’ is a judi c ial anachron i sm that flies in the face of Constitutional principles and the dictates o f common sense. It inevitabl y engenders an infinite ingress of action(s), undertaken by a person to se c ure ‘ local surety ’ by all and a ny means to satisfy an illogical tenet of pra c tice. It is a practice that need s to be consi g ned to oblivion. The Courts o f law must not be held captive b y a mechanical and archaic adherence to pre v alent practices.

¶37

AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.17 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

CRM-M-6979-2024 6

¶39

6.3. This Court is not oblivious to the fact that this anachroni s tic practice often prompts rise to prec a rious and, at times, uneth i cal arrangem e nts. In a significant number of cases, the accused, who i s a stranger t o the jurisdiction, is compelle d to procure a local surety thro u gh local cou n sel, leading to a situation whe r e the surety is a complete stran g er to the ac c used. This is a travesty of justi c e, for the very purpose of a su r ety –– to en s ure the accused’s appearance i n Court –– is subverted when the bond is based on a transactional arr a ngement rather than proced u ral acquaint a nce of trust.

¶40

6.4. It is in this factual milieu, p r evalent at the grass-root level, that this Cour t ought to consider the petition i n hand, as, it is a well-establis h ed and univ e rsally acknowledged judicial p rinciple that a Court ought no t to adjudicat e from an ivory tower and that t h e judicial decisions must reso n ate with the p ractical realities of Society rather than remain shackled to abst r act interpret a tion(s) of legal doctrine(s). The Courts, indubitably hold a dual responsibility; to uphold rule of law as a lso to ensure that justice rem a ins relevant a nd responsive to the dynamic c o nditions of Society. Applicatio n of the prin c iples of adjudication coalesc e d with percipience towards the pragmati c and functional societal realiti e s are of particular import in s u ch cases. A n adjudication without pragmatic lens runs the risk of prioritiz i ng procedur a l/technical formalities over th e substantive justice, which co u ld eventuate in dilution of justice. The Co u rts, especially while dealing w ith such issu e s, ought to take cognizance of t he pragmatic exigencies of Society in shapin g its decision(s) in way(s) that f oster societal progression. Pu b lic trust; is i n dubitably rooted in the belief; t hat the Courts understand, res p ect AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.17 16:55I attest to the accuracy andand take i nto account the societal reality( s ). integrity of this document

¶41

CRM-M-6979-2024 7

¶42

Before delving into factual milieu , of the petition in han d it would be appropriate to refer herein to t h e case law germane to the issu e (s) in hand.

¶43

7.1. In a judgment titled as State of Haryana and others vs. Ch.

¶44

Bhajan Lal and ors. 1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 383 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court ha s held thus:

¶45

“107. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various rele v ant provisions of the Code under C hapter XIV and the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a ser i es of decisions relating to the exercis e of the extraordinary power under A rticle 226 or the inherent powers u n der Section 482 of the Code which w e have extracted and reproduced ab o ve, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration whe r ein such power could be exercised e ither to prevent abuse of the proces s of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may no t be possible to lay down any pr e cise, clearly defined and sufficie n tly channelized and inflexible guid e lines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds o f cases wherein such power shoul d be exercised.

¶46

1. Where the alleg a tions made in the First Informa t ion Report or the complaint, e ven if they are taken at their face v a lue and accepted in their en t irety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a cas e against the accused.

¶47

2. Where the allegat i ons in the First Information Report a nd other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclo s e a cognizable offence, justi fy ing an investigation by police offi c ers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the pur v iew of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶48

3. Where the uncont r overted allegations made in the FI R or complaint and the eviden c e collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a c ase against the accused.

¶49

4. Where, the alleg a tions in the FIR do not constitut e a cognizable offence but c o nstitute only a non-cognizable offe n ce, no investigation is permi t ted by a police officer without an o r der of a Magistrate as contem p lated under Section 155(2) of the C o de.

¶50

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint ar e so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can eve r reach a just conclusion that ther e is sufficient ground for proc e eding against the accused.

¶51

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any o f the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under whic h a

¶52

AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.17 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶53

CRM-M-6979-2024

¶54

8

¶55

criminal proceeding i s instituted) to the institution a nd continuance of the proce e dings and/or where there is a spe c ific provision in the Code or t he concerned Act, providing efficac i ous redress for the grievance o f the aggrieved party.

¶56

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended w ith mala fide and/or where t he proceedings is maliciously instit u ted with an ulterior motive f or wreaking vengeance on the acc u sed and with a view to spite h i m due to private and personal grudg e .

¶57

108. We also give a note of c aution to the effect that the powe r of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly a nd with circumspection and that t o o in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in e mbarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or oth e rwise of the allegations made in the F IR or the complaint and that the e x traordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction o n the Court to act according to its w h im or caprice. ”

¶58

7.2. More recently, the Hon’ble S upreme Court in a judgment titled as Mahmood Ali &ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw(SC) 613,

¶59

has held a s under:-

¶60

“12. xxxxxxxx. Therefore, it w ill not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the pur p ose of ascertaining whether the nece s sary ingredients to constitute the alle g ed offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look int o many other attending circumsta n ces emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments a nd, if need be, with due care and ci r cumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercisin g its jurisdiction under Section 482 o f the CrPC or Article 226 of the Cons t itution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empow e red to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the init i ation/registration of the case as wel l as the materials collected in the cou r se of investigation…............... ” 8. Reverting to the facts of t he case in hand, the undisputed position i s that the petitioners (herein) a r e residents of Kolkata, who u p on being su m moned by the concerned Judic i al Magistrate at Gurugram, sou g ht to enter a p pearance in proceedings initia t ed against them under Section 1 38 of NIA. The crux of the FIR and th e investigation undertaken the r ein

¶61

AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.17 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶62

CRM-M-6979-2024 9

¶63

against t h e petitioners (herein) is that w hen they were required to fur n ish bail-bon d s/surety in the proceedings u n der Section 138 of NIA, the c o- accused n amely Hari Singh and Yashpal Singh (who came forward to st a nd surety fo r them) were found to be in p o ssession of fake documents. T he order dat e d 14.12.2023 passed by the co n cerned Judicial Magistrate cle a rly reflects t hat the sureties themselves a dmitted to having no personal acquaint a nce with the petitioners. Furt h ermore, the alleged forgery w as attribute d to a third person, namely Sant o sh. Besides, the learned trial C o urt has not r e corded any finding(s) with re g ard to the fact that the petitio n ers have act e d with any fraudulent intent. O n the contrary, the learned t r ial Court h a s permitted the petitioners t o furnish fresh bonds, ther e by acknowledging their bona fides . Taking into consideration these attend i ng circumst a nces emerging from the record s of the case, it is indubitably clear that the petitioners (herein) cannot be sai d to be complicit in the offence ( s), forming t he subject matter of the FIR in question. The offences un d er Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC (Ch e ating & Dishonest Induceme n t); Sections 4 67 & 468 of the IPC (Forgery with intent to Cheat); and Sect i on 471 of the IPC (Using forged document s as genuine), are predicated u p on the exist e nce of a culpable mental state , or mens rea , as an indispensable ingredien t –– which ought to be demon s trably established for a succes s ful prosecuti o n — and is not merely a peripheral consideration. A perusal of the record u n equivocally reveals a conspicuous absence of any mens rea that could be legitimately imputed to the p etitioners. The factual matrix, as delineate d in the record, is utterly devo i d of any indica of a dishonest or fraudulent intent on part of the petitione r s — in absence whereof, the v e ry AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.17 16:55I attest to the accuracy andfoundation of the allegations crumbles. S imilarly, an offence under Sect i on integrity of this document

¶64

CRM-M-6979-2024 10

¶65

120-B o f the IPC (Criminal Conspira c y) mandates a ‘prior meeting of minds’ o r a ‘pre-meditated agreement’ to perpetrate a criminal a ct. However , upon a careful consideration o f the nature of the allegations, the attendant circumstances, and the specific roles ascribed to the petitioner s , it becomes p atently clear that they cannot be held complicit in the commiss i on of the of f ences enumerated in the FIR i n question. The circumstances on record, f ar from establishing a conspiratorial nexus, point toward s a complete disconnect between the petitio n ers’ actions and any pre-arran g ed unlawful purpose. Indeed, the finding(s) r ecorded by the learned trial Co u rt, permittin g the petitioners to furnish fr e sh personal bonds, is in itsel f a powerful j udicial imprimatur that the cul p ability of the petitioners is, at b e st, tenuous.

¶66

The material which has co m e on record does not indicate a ny nexus be t ween the petitioners and the s ureties beyond their introduct i on through l o cal counsel. It is trite law that w here the allegations in the FIR a nd the acco m panying material do not discl o se the ingredients of any offe n ce, the Cour t would be justified in invoking its inherent powers under Sect i on 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the proc e ss of law. In the present case, the petitione r s have not gained any benefit from the forged documents; t h ey were per m itted to furnish fresh personal b onds and the factum of the lear n ed trial Cou r t itself not attributing any c u lpability to the petitioners is, in essence, a sub silentio acknowledg m ent of the tenuousness of the prosecuti o n’s case against the petitioner s . The factual milieu of the cas e in hand doe s not reflect that the petitioners (herein) were in any way invol v ed with the p reparation of the said forged/f a ke documents. The petitioners are AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.17 16:55I attest to the accuracy andsought to be prosecuted, primarily, for t h e reason that the said co-accu s ed integrity of this document

¶67

CRM-M-6979-2024 11

¶68

(who are stated to be fake sureties) have appeared in Court as surety(s) for the petiti o ners (herein).

¶69

A perusal of the record an d the factual matrix of the present case doe s reflect that it would not be in the interest of justice to conti n ue with the p roceedings emanating from th e impugned FIR qua the petitio n ers

¶70

(herein).

¶71

In view of the prevenient rat i ocination, it is ordained thus: (i) The impugned FIR No.26 3 6 dated 14.12.2023 registered at Police S t ation Shivaji Nagar, Gurugra m for offences punishable un d er Sections 1 20-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and all consequen t ial proceedi n gs arising therefrom are quashe d qua the petitioners. (ii) Nothing said hereinabove s h all be construed as an express i on of opini o n upon the merits of the ca s e regarding the co-accused/n o n- petitione r s and it is clarified that proce e dings against the said co-accu s ed shall con t inue in accordance with law.

¶72

(iii) Pending application(s), if an y , shall stand disposed of.

¶73

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

¶74

Septemb e r 17, 2025 Ajay

¶75

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶76

AJAY KUMAR 2025.09.17 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sumit Sharma v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Sharma v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Randhir Singh Vs State of Haryana & Others

M/S Kansal Sons Vs M/S Vinamre Engg. Solutions and Another

Sonu and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Jasvir Singh @ Manjit Singh Vs Inderjit Kaur

Paramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Inderjit Singh Alias Rohit Vs State of Punjab