IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Namit Kumar, J.
Radhey Sham Singhal & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M-46210 of 2022
Decided On : 08-12-2022
Fraud - Criminal Conspiracy - IPC 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 - The court discussed the fraudulent inducement and cheating by the petitioners under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC. The court also highlighted the cancellation of bail due to violation of compromise terms and the legal principles related to fraud vitiating everything.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners induced the complainant to get his disabled son treated abroad, extracted money from him, and then violated the compromise terms, leading to the cancellation of their bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners played fraud with the complainant and the court by obtaining bail based on a compromised settlement and then violating the terms of the compromise.
Issues: Fraud, Criminal Conspiracy, Violation of Compromise Terms, Cancellation of Bail
Ratio Decidendi: Fraud vitiates everything, and no person can benefit from their own fraud. The court emphasized that the petitioners played fraud with the complainant and the court, leading to the dismissal of their petition.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed for being devoid of merit.
JUDGMENT
Namit Kumar, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 15.09.2022 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby regular bail granted to them vide order dated 28.08.2020 in case FIR No.260 dated 04.08.2020 under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC registered at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal, has been cancelled.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.08.2020,complainant Ravi Kumar Gupta moved an application before the police alleging therein that his son Akshay aged 20 years had become permanently disabled in a road accident in the year 2017. Sandeep (petitioner No.2) induced the complainant to get his son treated from some big hospital abroad and stated that his brother-in-law RadheyShyam (petitioner No.1) and Amit Kumar, his partner are having friends and business relations in America and Australia and they would assist the complainant in getting the treatment of his son abroad. Believing petitioner No.2, complainant gave medical report of his son to him and a few days later, petitioner No.2 stated that his son would require treatment in a big hospital situated in New York City, America and he has already talked with the doctors in the hospital who had given assurance that the son of complainant would fully recover. He further stated that the treatment in America would take about one to two years and suggested that the complainant with his entire family goes to America during the said period. He assured that the complainant would only need to get visa issued and the rest of the work shall be undertaken by RadheyShyam (petitioner No.1) and Amit. He further stated that a sum of 3.5 crores would be expended in the treatment, out of which a sum of 2 crores is to be paid initially, thereafter a sum of 1 crore is to be paid and finally a sum of 50 lacs is to be paid after the treatment is completed. The said amount would include the expenses for a house, job in a company, treatment of son of complainant and issuance of Green Card to the complainant. Thereafter, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy Sandeep (petitioner No.2) introduced complainant to RadheyShyam (petitioner No.1) and Amit and stated that the three of them were running a big company in the name of S.R. Logistics. Then, all three of them assured the complainant that they were associated with various trusts and companies in connection with their business and they would use their contacts to get the work of complainant done. The complainant arranged a sum of 2 crores from his business and by borrowing from his family members and relatives and gave the said amount to Amit and Sandeep (petitioner No.2) on 10.10.2019 and receipt of the amount was also issued by said persons in presence of Kunal Chopra. The complainant was given assurance that with the help of a trust situated at Chandigarh and a company Rajesh Exports, New Delhi, belonging to a friend of the accused, they would get the entire work done. On 11.10.2019 Sandeep (petitioner No.2) told the complainant that his work had commenced and all the said persons RadheyShyam (petitioner No.1), Amit and Sandeep (petitioner No.2) showed him a mail sent by Rajesh Exports and certain papers issued by Canara Bank bearing signatures of one Amit Singh as Branch Manager in which the factum of transfer of funds 3.5 crores in the name of Prachin Shree Shiv Mandir Charitable Trust had been recorded. Thereafter, on the demand of accused the complainant arranged another sum of 1 crore from his business and relatives and handed over the same to the accused on 19.10.2019 and the accused issued a receipt even with respect to the said amount. On 29.10.2019, the visa of complainant and his family members was received and upon asking, the accused assured that the work of complainant would be completed in the month of December, 2019. However, the accused kept delaying the matter and on repeated asking, the accused c
A. V. PapayyaSastry and others vs. Govt. of A.P. and others
AbhilashVmodkumar Jain (Smt.) vs. Cox & Kings (India) Ltd. and others
AV. PapayyaSastry and others vs. Government of A.P. and others
BimanChatterjee vs. SanchitaChatterjee and another
KumariJuhiRai vs. State of Bihar (Patna) and Jai Krishan vs. The State ofPunjab
Lazarus Estates Ltd. vs. Beasley
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs. vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRs. &Ors.
AI
Fraud vitiates everything, and no person can benefit from their own fraud.
An order granted based on fraudulent documents is null and void, allowing for its cancellation under Section 439(2) CrPC.
The court emphasized the limitations on the court's power to cancel bail and the need for strong and substantive reasons to arrest a person who is set at liberty by admitting him to bail.
Cancellation of bail – Favourable order obtained by suppressing facts cannot be allowed to stand.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to cancel bail based on fraudulent misrepresentation and the importance of supervening circumstances in such decisions.
The distinction between rejection of bail at the initial stage and cancellation of bail already granted, requiring overwhelming grounds for the latter.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.