IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 103 Naresh Kumar Sood State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present :- Mr. Mr. Arnav Ghai Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punjab Mr. Rajat Malhotra, Advocate for the complainant. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 bearing FIR No. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Commissionerate Ludhiana, District Ludhiana 2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the complaint of Kanav Jain on averments and allegations the Textile and Garment manufacturing business. He was allured into a business association as M/s Sunrise Clothing, Ludhiana. The complainant has alleged that the petitioner joined him in his firm with an oral promise of being treated as equal partner with 50% stake in business and profits/losses. This promise was orally made and acted upon by fraudulent misrepresentations and he devoted his time, energy, industry contacts and also Sunrise Clothing. He did not suspect that the petitioner IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-53307 Date of decision: Naresh Kumar Sood VERSUS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punjab Mr. Rajat Malhotra, Advocate for the complainant. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail FIR No.93 dated 25.08.2025 registered under Section Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Meharban, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana, District Ludhiana. The FIR in the present case was registered on the complaint of on averments and allegations to the effect t le and Garment manufacturing business. He was allured into a business association as a long term partnership M/s Sunrise Clothing, Ludhiana. The complainant has alleged that the petitioner joined him in his firm with an oral promise of being treated as equal partner with 50% stake in business and profits/losses. This promise was orally made and acted upon by both the parties. The complainant was misl fraudulent misrepresentations and he devoted his time, energy, industry also invested Rs. 2 Crores in the functioning and expansion of M/s Sunrise Clothing. He did not suspect that the petitioner IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 53307-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.03.2026 ...Petitioner ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate assisted by for the petitioner. Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr.DAG, Punjab. Mr. Rajat Malhotra, Advocate for the complainant. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the for grant of anticipatory bail in case registered under Section 316 of the at Police Station Meharban, District Police The FIR in the present case was registered on the complaint of to the effect that he was engaged in le and Garment manufacturing business. He was allured into a in his proprietorship concern M/s Sunrise Clothing, Ludhiana. The complainant has alleged that the petitioner joined him in his firm with an oral promise of being treated as an equal partner with 50% stake in business and profits/losses. This promise was both the parties. The complainant was misled by fraudulent misrepresentations and he devoted his time, energy, industry invested Rs. 2 Crores in the functioning and expansion of M/s Sunrise Clothing. He did not suspect that the petitioner would deceitfully oust SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.20 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 103 CRM-M-53307-2025 (O&M) him after financially benefiting from his contribution. The complainant stated that during the course of their joint business operations, he was made to believe that he was building an asset with equal stake and that business decisions were being taken with his involvement and consent. The turnover increased manifolds as the complainant gave marketing leads and this helped him to secure and manage significant business with V-2 Retails Pvt. Ltd., one of the largest buyers. When the differences arose in the year 2024 between them, then the petitioner along with his son Gaurav Sood proposed to resolve the matter and executed a purported settlement/ agreement/partition deed dated 23.07.2024 acknowledging that a sum of Rs. 8,30,42,719/- was payable to the complainant towards his share in the business. As per this, the complainant had to receive certain sums directly from the third party debtors of the firm (Rs. 2.18 crores from Gulab Valley Apartment, Rs. 1.82 crores from Mohit Dhir Property Dealer) Rs. 2 crore against business generated from V-2 Retail Pvt. Ltd. and finally Rs. 2.3 crores worth of value was to be compensated by transferring 50% of land measuring 7 Kanal 12 Marla being 3 Kanal 16 Marlas owned by Naresh Sood (petitioner) with a promise to execute and register the sale deed by 15.11.2024. The complainant has also alleged that both petitioner and his son Gaurav Sood continued to enjoy benefits from the firms and the complainant in good faith discharged his obligations under the said agreement. He ensured the business worth Rs. 14 Crore with V-2 Retail Pvt. Ltd., out of which the petitioner received substantial payments and yet failed and refused to pay him the balance from the promised amount i.e. Rs. 1,30,05,521/-, thus retaining the entire benefits. The petitioner was alleged to have executed a second agreement, promising execution of the sale deed by 15.01.2025 and to pay Rs. 1.30 Crore by 30.11.2024 and the balance of Rs. 1 Crore thereafter. It SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.20 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 103 CRM-M-53307-2025 (O&M) was also agreed that failing this the complainant could sell the property to a third party. This was a ploy to again defer the rights of the complainant and dupe him. The petitioner had also issued four cheques in favour of the complainant amounting to Rs.70 lakhs and kept them with the mediators Shammi Kapoor and Bhajan Kapoor to be handed over to the complainant as part payment in case the agreement was not complied with. Further allegation of the complainant is that none of the obligations were fulfilled and both the accused went to the extent of even trying to sell off the land which was promised to him. When the complainant approached the mediators for taking the cheques, he was informed that the cheques had already been taken away by the petitioner from their office. Thus, the conduct of petitioner in connivance with his son showed mala fide intent, deception, breach of trust and criminal misappropriation. They wanted to eject the complainant from the business once the firm had been stabilized and gained profitably with his help. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner had been receiving money from V-2 Retail Pvt. Ltd., which was stopped by the complainant Kanav Jain, who used to stop the payments at his own whims and blackmail the petitioner in the context of stopping all future billings of ordered goods and stopping the payments from V-2 Retail Pvt. Ltd. When the petitioner used to pay the amount of Kusum Firm, only then did the complainant-Kanav Jain used to release the balance amount. It was thus a case of misuse of law by the complainant himself, who was operating with an ulterior motive to extort money and thereby falsely implicate the petitioner. The complainant, being a businessman in textiles and garment, was associated with the petitioner in his firm M/s Sunrise Clothing. The FIR had been got registered on the allegation that the complainant had been allured to make investment to SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.20 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 103 CRM-M-53307-2025 (O&M) the tune of Rs.2 Crores approximately in expansion of business of the petitioner whereupon partnership agreement was executed followed by settlement of accounts. Alleging that the obligations under the agreement had not been fulfilled and the cheques that had been issued were withdrawn, the present FIR had been registered. Counsel for the petitioner contends that as a matter of fact, substantial payments of Rs.3 Crores had already been made to the complainant or his entities by RTGS/cash. The details of the payments have been referred to in different documents appended alongwith the present petition. It is also pointed out that a civil suit for mandatory and permanent injunction had been filed by the complainant for seeking execution of sale deed/agreement alongwith specific performance which is pending adjudication. 4. Learned State Counsel on instructions from ASI Radhey Sham, No.2124/LDH, contends that the matter has been thoroughly investigated and that the police has already prepared a cancellation report and is likely to file the same within a period of 04 weeks from today, after obtaining necessary approvals. 5. Counsel for the complainant however contends that in the earlier status report filed by the respondent/State, the petitioner was shown as a principal accused and now they have changed their stance. He further prays that the respondent/State be asked to explain the circumstances in which the cancellation has been moved by them without joining the complainant and without giving any reason for the same. 6. I have heard counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended alongwith the present petition. 7. While examining a petition for grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is not required to go into the merits of the final conclusions that have SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.20 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 103 CRM-M-53307-2025 (O&M) been drawn by the respondent-Investigating Agency in a private financial dispute arising out of a contractual relationship. Once the respondent-State contends that the investigation has been concluded into recommending a cancellation report, the remedy lies with the complainant to file a protest petition before the Illaqa Magistrate. There would be no presumption of malice against the investigating agency merely because, over a period of time, instead of filing a charge-sheet, the investigating agency chooses to file a cancellation report. The complainant, if so advised, shall have the liberty to avail of appropriate remedies in accordance with law against the final report recommending cancellation qua the petitioner. 8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the interim order dated 06.11.2025 is made absolute. 9. However, if required, the petitioner(s) shall continue to join investigation as and when required to do so and shall abide by the terms and conditions, as laid down under Section 482 (2) BNSS. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 18.03.2026 JUDGE Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.03.20 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document