CRM-M/16384/2026 of JITENDRA KUMAR KAUSHIK Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS on 18 August 2026

1. Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking quashing of FIR No. 0048 dated 04.02.2026 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC (corresponding to Sections 316 and 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), at Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioner.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case emanates from a written complaint submitted by complainant Parveen Kumar son of Ram Avtar, resident of village Sagwan, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani, to the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani. The complainant alleged that he came

-:2:- into contact with co-accused Harender Singh Rautela through Facebook and, during their subsequent interaction, was informed that Harender Singh Rautela had established a company, namely Kizansh Spirits Pvt. Ltd., in partnership with others. The complainant was allegedly introduced to Jitender son of Ved Parkash, Court Road, Bhiwani, who represented himself as a 10% partner in the said company and showed him a liquor godown near the New Bus Stand, Bhiwani.

2.1. It is further alleged that Harender Singh Rautela, along with his wife Jayanti Rautela, represented themselves as Directors of the said company and claimed that the company was engaged in the liquor business in Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and other States. The complainant was allegedly induced to obtain a C&F licence/certificate for carrying on the company's liquor business in Haryana, upon the representation that such arrangement would enable him to supply liquor throughout the State and earn substantial profits. For the said purpose, the accused persons allegedly demanded a sum of 2 crore ₹ from the complainant.

2.2. Acting upon the aforesaid representations, the complainant allegedly transferred substantial amounts through Google Pay, PhonePe and bank-to-bank transactions into account No. 922020012812195 maintained with Axis Bank, Noida, in the name of the said company. It is alleged that, between August 2023 and November 2023, the complainant paid an aggregate amount of 1,53,00,000/-, comprising 1,03,00,000/- ₹ ₹ through banking channels and 50,00,000/- in cash. It is further alleged ₹ that, against the said payment, the accused persons executed a “State

-:3:- Partner Agreement” dated 01.08.2023 purportedly relating to the liquor business of the company in Haryana, which bore the stamp and signatures of co-accused Prem Parkash, Advocate, Notary Public. Thereafter, a certificate dated 13.10.2023 was allegedly issued on behalf of the company, acknowledging receipt of 1.53 crore from the complainant, and ₹ was stated to bear the signatures of Harender Singh Rautela and other persons as witnesses.

2.3. The complainant further alleged that, despite repeated attempts to contact Harender Singh Rautela, Jayanti Rautela and the other accused for commencement of the proposed liquor business in Haryana, they allegedly ceased responding to his calls. Upon personally approaching them and demanding either commencement of the business or refund of the amount paid by him, the accused allegedly refused to honour the arrangement or return the money and extended threats to his life. The complainant accordingly alleged that the accused persons, acting in furtherance of a common design and pursuant to a conspiracy, dishonestly induced him to part with 1,53,00,000/- on the basis of false ₹ representations concerning the proposed liquor business and thereafter misappropriated the said amount.

2.4. It was further alleged that the accused persons had similarly cheated other persons by making representations regarding commencement of liquor business through the said company. In support thereof, reference was made to FIR No. 196 dated 27.07.2023, registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station Babu Banarsi Dass, Lucknow, as well as another FIR registered at Police Station

-:4:- City Bhiwani under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 and 506 IPC. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the complainant sought registration of the present FIR, recovery of 1,53,00,000/- and appropriate legal action ₹ against the accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen and has been falsely implicated without any specific or substantive material connecting him with the alleged offences. A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that the allegations against the petitioner are vague, general and omnibus, with no specific overt act attributed to him so as to constitute the essential ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC. It is further submitted that the underlying dispute arises from a commercial transaction between the complainant and Kizansh Spirits Private Limited, with which the petitioner has no connection whatsoever, he being neither its director, partner nor employee. The petitioner is not a signatory to the alleged agreement dated 01.08.2023 and had no role in the financial transactions, which were admittedly undertaken directly with the bank account of the company.

3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the allegation that the petitioner introduced the complainant to the principal accused or represented himself as a partner of the company is wholly unfounded and bereft of any independent or documentary corroboration. It is contended that the material placed on record, including the petitioner’s travel records, prima facie establishes his absence from the alleged place at the relevant time. It is further pointed out that the complainant had earlier lodged a complaint dated 02.02.2024 concerning the very same transaction, wherein

-:5:- the petitioner was conspicuously not named. His subsequent implication in the present FIR is, therefore, alleged to be a belated embellishment, actuated by mala fides and intended to exert undue pressure upon the petitioner for recovery of the disputed amount.

3.2. It is contended that, even if the allegations are taken at their face value, the dispute essentially emanates from a commercial/investment arrangement containing an arbitration clause and, therefore, does not disclose the requisite ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to have neither received nor appropriated any amount from the complainant and, rather, is himself alleged to have been a victim of the acts attributed to the principal accused. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against him, in the absence of specific incriminating material, would consequently amount to abuse of the process of law.

3.3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is suffering from advanced coronary artery disease (triple-vessel disease), as reflected from the Coronary Angiography Report dated 10.09.2025, and has been advised bypass surgery. His cardiac function is stated to be critically reduced, with an ejection fraction of approximately 33-35%. It is accordingly contended that the petitioner's serious medical condition also warrants consideration while examining the propriety of permitting coercive criminal proceedings against him. On these premises, quashing of the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is prayed for.

-:6:-

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has filed a reply by way of affidavit of Shareef Singh, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, State Crime Branch, Madhuban, Karnal, Haryana. Learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the investigation is still at a material stage. It is contended that the investigating agency is undertaking a comprehensive examination of the money trail through the bank accounts of Kizansh Spirits Private Limited and is reconciling the financial records of the company, the persons concerned and the associated firms, besides obtaining and scrutinising records from the relevant departments and banking institutions. According to the State, such exercise is necessary for ascertaining the flow of the complainant's funds and determining the respective roles of the accused persons.

4.1. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner has approached this Court with mala fide intent, with a view to evade lawful investigation, and that the material collected during investigation prima facie discloses his active involvement in the alleged offence. It is contended that the matter involves serious allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust involving substantial financial transactions and that premature interference at the present stage may prejudice the ongoing investigation. On these grounds, it is submitted that the petition is devoid of merit and amounts to an abuse of the process of law; hence, dismissal of the petition is prayed for.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have meticulously perused the pleadings, the material placed on

-:7:- record and the relevant documents, with the able assistance rendered by learned counsel appearing on either side.

6. Upon a careful consideration of the allegations contained in the FIR, read in conjunction with the material collected during the course of investigation, this Court is of the prima facie view that it cannot be held that the impugned FIR fails to disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. Equally, it cannot be concluded that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety as true at this stage, do not constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged, or that they are so patently absurd, inherently improbable or manifestly frivolous as to justify the exercise of the extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the criminal proceedings. Consequently, the case of the petitioner does not satisfy any of the well-recognised parameters governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings, as authoritatively enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1991 (1) RCR (Criminal) 383. The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder:- “107. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently

-:8:- channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and

-:9:- continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

108. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.”

6. In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401, a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively delineated the scope and ambit of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Reaffirming the settled legal position, the Court held that the power to quash criminal proceedings is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly, with great circumspection, and only in exceptional cases, the expression "rarest of rare" being employed in a context distinct from that governing the imposition of capital punishment.

6.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing an FIR or criminal

-:10:- proceedings, the High Court is not expected to enter into disputed questions of fact or adjudicate upon the correctness, reliability or genuineness of the allegations levelled in the FIR or complaint. At such stage, the Court cannot examine the defence available to the accused, undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence, or conduct a mini-trial. Interference would be justified only where the case unmistakably falls within the well-recognised parameters governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction, particularly those enunciated in R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal (supra).

7. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid settled principles, the present case does not satisfy any of the parameters laid down in Ch.Bhajan Lal (supra) or M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) so as to warrant the exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of this Court. At this stage, there is no material to prima facie indicate that the impugned FIR is manifestly mala fide, frivolous, vexatious, or actuated by an ulterior motive amounting to an abuse of the process of law. On the contrary, the allegations contained therein disclose the commission of cognizable offences, thereby necessitating a fair, impartial and complete investigation. Judicial interdiction at this incipient stage would, therefore, be wholly unwarranted.

8. Having considered the rival submissions and the material on record, the contention of the petitioner that he has no association with the company and that the disputed amount was credited directly to the company's account cannot, at this stage, be considered in isolation. The

-:11:- FIR contains specific and categorical allegations that, upon meeting the complainant at Bhiwani, the petitioner represented himself as a 10% partner of the company, assured the complainant that there was no cause for concern in making the proposed investment, and, by representing the liquor godown near the New Bus Stand, Bhiwani, as belonging to the said company, allegedly induced the complainant to part with substantial amounts.

8.1. These allegations constitute specific assertions concerning the petitioner's representation, conduct and alleged role in inducing the complainant to enter into the transaction. The petitioner's denial of such representation and his assertion that he had no connection with the company raise disputed questions of fact, the determination whereof necessarily requires appreciation of evidence and cannot appropriately be undertaken in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court at the threshold.

8.2. Having regard to the specific nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation and the settled parameters governing exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, this Court is not persuaded that the present case falls within the narrow and exceptional category warranting quashing of the FIR or interdiction of the criminal proceedings at their inception. Any meticulous evaluation of the rival versions at this stage would amount to a premature adjudication of matters which are required to be examined during investigation and, if necessary, at trial.

-:12:-

8.3. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the defence sought to be raised by the petitioner, lest the same prejudice either side during the course of investigation or trial, this Court finds no ground for interference. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

8.4. It is, however, clarified that the observations recorded herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The Investigating Agency as well as the learned Trial Court shall proceed independently and strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations contained in the present order.

9. In view of the final adjudication of the principal petition, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary thereto, shall also stand disposed of. No separate or further orders are called for in respect thereof.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 18.08.2026

JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No