2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 77197
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Mandeep Pannu, J
RAJEEV JHA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER – Respondent
CRM-M-15650-2022
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR
Act Referred
Headnote
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ankur Malik
For the Respondents: Sushil Bhardwaj, Tanmoy Gupta
##PAGE1##
CRM-M-15650-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-15650-2022
Reserved on:-20.05.2026
Pronounced on:-25.05.2026
Uploaded on:- 26.05.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is
Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment
RAJEEV JHA ...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present:- Mr. Ankur Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
Mr. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.2/Complainant.
*****
MANDEEP PANNU, J.
1. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.205
dated 27.03.2017 registered under Sections 408, 467, 468 and 471 IPC
(Section 204 IPC added later on vide order dated 07.04.2026) at Police
Station DLF, District Gurugram and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.
2. Briefly stated, the allegations in the present FIR are that the
petitioner Rajeev Jha was employed as an Accountant with the complainant-
company namely FOS Laser Spa Pvt. Ltd. And LA Skin since 10.07.2015 on
a fixed salary of Rs.25,000/- per month, which was later enhanced. During
ANU
2026.05.26 09:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
##PAGE2##CRM-M-15650-2022 2
the course of employment, he was entrusted with accounting work, banking
transactions, cash handling, taxation work and release of cheque payments.
It is alleged that discrepancies were noticed in the accounts maintained by
the petitioner and the company’s CA refused to audit the books on account
of alleged false calculations and incorrect entries. It is further alleged that
the petitioner failed to deposit company cash in the bank account in time
and, upon being questioned, used to furnish false explanations. Thereafter,
the complainant-company issued a one month termination notice to the
petitioner on 22.10.2016. According to the complainant, after receiving the
termination notice, the petitioner stopped reporting for work and switched
off his mobile phone. Subsequently, the complainant received SMS and
email alerts from HDFC Bank regarding clearance of certain cheques from
the company accounts. Upon inquiry, it allegedly came to light that the
cheques had been encashed in accounts linked to the petitioner. It is further
alleged that several cheque leaves, company documents, letterheads and
company stamp were missing and that cash amounting to Rs.37,000/- had
also been misappropriated. On the basis of these allegations, FIR No.205
dated 27.03.2017 under Sections 408, 467, 468 and 471 IPC came to be
registered at Police Station DLF, District Gurugram.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
was appointed with respondent No.2-firm in June, 2015 on a monthly salary
of Rs.55,000/- and discharged his duties diligently without there being any
complaint against him during the course of employment. It is submitted that
though the agreed salary of the petitioner was Rs.55,000/- per month, the
respondents initially paid only Rs.25,000/- through cheques and the
ANU
2026.05.26 09:39
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
##PAGE3##CRM-M-15650-2022 3
remaining amount in cash. Thereafter, from September, 2015 till March,
2016, only Rs.25,000/- through cheques and Rs.5,000/- in cash were
allegedly paid to the petitioner and the balance salary amount remained
unpaid on the assurance that the same would be cleared later. It is further
contended that a sum of Rs.3,44,516/- became due towards arrears of salary
payable to the petitioner. However, instead of clearing the outstanding dues,
the respondents issued a termination notice dated 22.10.2016 and terminated
the services of the petitioner. At the time of termination, the petitioner
handed over charge of all documents and articles belonging to the company
vide inventory dated 20.10.2016. Learned counsel submits that respondent
No.2 had issued four cheques towards salary arrears, out of which only one
cheque bearing No.00349 dated 28.12.2016 amount