Mahinder Kaur and Another v. State of Haryana
[Citation -2020-LL-0907-48]

Citation 2020-LL-0907-48
Appellant Name Mahinder Kaur and Another
Respondent Name State of Haryana
Relevant Act CGST
Date of Order 07/09/2020
Judgment View Judgment

IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23281-2020 DATE OF DECISION: 07.09.2020 MAHINDER KAUR AND ANOTHER ..Petitioners versus STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present: Mr. MunishBehl, Advocate for petitioners. Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG Haryana. Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate for complainant. .. ALKA SARIN, J.: (Oral) Heard through Video Conferencing. This is first petition under Section 438 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grantof anticipatory bail in case FIR No.183 dated01.08.2020 registeredunder Sections 420, 467&471 of IndianPenal Code, 1860 at Police Station Saha, District Ambala. FIR has been lodged on basis that fake E-way bill was generated for amount of Rs.1,79,200/-. counsel for petitioner would contend amount of Rs.9,600/- was paid as GST and hence there was no question of E-way bill being fake. Qua dishonoring of cheques, learned counsel for petitioner has contended that complaint has already been filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. status report has been filed by State wherein it has been stated that petitioner, for purpose of creating false evidence in case of dishonoring of cheques, had paid GST to tune of Rs.9,600/-. It 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 13-03-2021 09:48:34 ::: CRM-M-23281-2020 -2- has been further been stated that when forged and fabricated E-way bill is uploaded on site of Government, even though material was not supplied, site will depict E-way bill and GST paid on it. It has further been stated in reply that complaint was marked to Economic Offences Wing, Ambala City and was investigated and it was only after investigation that FIR was registered. State has also annexed with reply statement of one Mange Ram, driver of vehicle No. HR- 37-C-2981 in which goods alleged to have been sent by petitioner were loaded. According to this, said Mange Ram has stated that he never delivered any such goods to complainant. On similar lines, reply has been filed by counsel for complainant. Additionally, in reply filed by complainant, it is being stated that fake and forged E-way bill generated by petitioner was rejected by complainant on 05.01.2020 vide Annexure R-2/5. It has been further contended by learned counsel for complainant that once bill stood rejected by him, question of depositing GST on said bill did not arise. I have heard learned counsel for parties. In present case, though counsel for petitioner has vehemently contended that on E-way bill generated by petitionerGST was also deposited, however, learned counsel for petitioner is not in position to deny document Annexure R-2/5 which is electronically generated document which depicts that E-way bill dated 04.01.2020 was rejected by complainant on 05.01.2020. He is also not able to explain as to what was necessity of depositing GST on rejected bill. petitioner prima facie appears to have not only fabricated E-way bill but 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 13-03-2021 09:48:35 ::: CRM-M-23281-2020 -3- has also, in order to create evidence, filed his GST returns on bill which stood rejected by complainant on very next day. In view of above, present petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that nothing observed herein is to be construed as expression of opinion on merits of case. (ALKA SARIN) JUDGE 07.09.2020 Kv Whether speaking/reasonable: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No. 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 13-03-2021 09:48:35 ::: Mahinder Kaur and Another v. State of Haryana
Report Error