##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No.17560 of 2026 Date of decision:-06.04.2026

ARCHANA AGGARWAL …Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB …Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU

Present :- Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. A.S. Cheema, Mr. Satish Sharma and

Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab.

*****

MANDEEP PANNU, J

1. This is the first petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 438 Cr.P.C.) for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0018 dated 21.03.2025, registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS, 2023] at Police Station Punjab Agriculture University (PAU), District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana, wherein offence under Section 120-B IPC [Section 61(2) of

BNS, 2023] was added during the course of investigation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by Satish Sood, Partner of M/s Sky Mart Departmental Store, Limited Liability Partnership, alleging that accused No.1 company, i.e Haldi Ram Fincap Pvt. Ltd., through its Directors including accused No.2 Ashok

NEETU RANI

2026.04.07 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

CRM-M No.17560 of 2026 -2-

Kumar Aggarwal and accused No.3 Archana Aggarwal (present petitioner), induced the complainant to purchase franchise rights for District Ludhiana under the trade mark “Haldi Ram Bhujia”. It was represented that the accused company would supply raw material and trained staff. On such assurance, the complainant agreed and paid an advance amount of Rs.25,00,000/- through cheques, which were duly encashed. Thereafter, the accused persons allegedly induced the complainant to take franchise for the entire State of Punjab for a total consideration of Rs.2,25,00,000/-. Payments amounting to about Rs.2,25,00,000/- were made in installments. Despite receiving the said amount, the accused failed to provide the promised franchise, raw material or staff, and kept delaying the matter on one pretext or another. It is, further, alleged that accused No.2 to 6, including accused No.3 Archana Aggarwal, in connivance with each other, had dishonest intention from the very beginning and cheated the complainant, even extending threats and misrepresenting facts regarding the trade mark, thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant and

wrongful gain to themselves.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present FIR is false and has been registered under extraneous pressure, and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated despite having no role in the alleged transactions. It is argued that the allegations pertain to the year 2012 and relate to dealings with a proprietorship concern namely “Haldiram Bhujiawala” owned by co-accused Ashok Aggarwal, and not with the company M/s Haldiram Fincap Pvt. Ltd. It is, further, submitted that the petitioner, though earlier a Director in the said company, had already

NEETU RANI

2026.04.07 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment PHHC, CHD

CRM-M No.17560 of 2026 -3-

resigned/retired on 02.04.2018 and, therefore, cannot be held liable for the alleged acts. Learned counsel also submits that the prosecution story of an oral agreement involving huge payments without any written agreement or credible proof is inherently improbable, coupled with an unexplained delay of about 13 years, which clearly shows that a civil dispute has been given a criminal colour. It is, further, contended that there are vague and omnibus allegations against all the Directors, with no specific role attributed to the petitioner, and that in offences against a company, there is no concept of vicarious liability in the absence of specific allegations. It is also argued that the petitioner has co-operated in the investigation, the investigation is complete and