IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:17.09.2025 Sumit Sharma and another ....Petitioners V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate for the petitioner (through Video Conference).

Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. The petition in hand has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashing of FIR No.2636 dated 14.12.2023 registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioners.

2. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand is adumbrated, thus:

(i) The petitioners, who are permanent residents of Kolkata are residing in Kolkata for more than 45 years. They were former Directors of Dee Kartavya Finance Limited and had been arraigned as accused in two cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, i.e. NACT/17893/2020 and NACT/17281/2020, pending before the learned JMFC, Gurugram, filed by Moneywise Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.

(ii) In compliance with the order dated 18.09.2023 in the aforesaid cases, the petitioners appeared before the learned trial Court on 14.12.2023 ₹

and furnished personal bonds to the sum of 50,000/- each. However, their local counsel engaged by them, counselled them to arrange two local sureties to secure the bail. Being outsiders, the petitioners could not arrange sureties themselves and upon the assurance of their counsel, they relied upon two persons, introduced by their counsel, namely Hari Singh and Yashpal Singh.

(iii) Thereafter, the bail bonds alongwith the Aadhaar cards of the said sureties were furnished before the learned trial Court. However, upon verification and scrutiny, the said documents were found to be forged. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure P-2), held that the sureties disclosed they had no personal acquaintance with the petitioners and that the documents were prepared by one Santosh. Thereafter, the learned trial Court, while taking cognizance of the forgery, directed action against the aforesaid two sureties and directed the concerned SHO under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to investigate the matter. Concurrently, the learned trial Court permitted the petitioners to furnish fresh personal bonds.

(iv) Based on these set of allegations, the impugned FIR was registered against the sureties as well as the petitioners under Sections 120- B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Thereafter, the investigation was undertaken and challan (chargesheet) was presented by the Police.

(v) It is in the above factual backdrop, the petition in hand has come up for adjudication before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has iterated that the petitioners have neither any acquaintance with sureties namely Hari Singh and Yashpal Singh and nor any role in the preparation of forged Aadhaar cards. Learned counsel has further iterated that no benefit can be derived by the petitioners from the forged documents since their bail applications were rejected. Learned counsel has further submitted that the learned trial Court itself recorded the bona fides of the petitioners by accepting their ignorance of the forgery and nowhere observed that the petitioners’ have furnished forged documents of their own. Learned counsel has further submitted that the charge-sheet does not disclose any link or conspiracy between the petitioners and the alleged fake sureties. Learned counsel has asserted that the FIR against the petitioners is a clear abuse of process of law and continuation of proceedings would result in miscarriage of justice. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in hand, is entreated for. 4. The State of Haryana, upon being called upon, has filed reply dated 30.08.2024 by way