Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:HHC:26696 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1259 of 2024 Reserved on : 05.08.2025 Decided on : 08.08.2025 Prawal Tak …Applicant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh
…Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant : Applicant in person with Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Vishali Lakhanpal and Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocates. For the respondent: Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1 Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Sipahiya and Mr. Manik
Sethi,
Advocates
for respondent No.2/complainant. Virender Singh, Judge Apprehending his arrest, in case FIR No.106 of 2024 dated 22.07.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), with Police Station Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P., the 1Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:26696
applicant has filed the present application, under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’). 2. By way of the present application, the applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the I.O./police of Police Station Barotiwala, to release him, on bail, in the event of his arrest, in the abovementioned case/FIR. 3. According to the applicant, he has falsely been implicated, in the present case, as, he has nothing to do with the offence. 4. It is the case of the applicant that bare reading of the FIR, lodged against him, makes out a case, according to which, the dispute is stated to be purely civil in nature, arising out of contractual obligations, between two business entity. 5. The applicant has also put forward his clear antecedents for seeking the relief, in this case. He has also pleaded that he is a lawabiding citizen, having deep roots in the society. 6. Applicant had earlier tried his luck by moving similar application, before the Court of learned Additional
3 2025:HHC:26696
Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., however, his application was dismissed, vide order dated
27.05.2025. 7. On the basis of above facts, certain undertakings have been given on behalf of applicant, for which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, any direction is issued to the police/I.O., under Section 482 of the BNSS, in this case. 8.
When, put to notice, the police has filed the status report, on 22.10.2024, disclosing therein that on 22.07.2024, a complaint was received from the Office of Superintendent of Police, District Police Baddi, District Solan, H.P., moved by Rajiv Singla, mentioning therein the following facts:
“1. The Complainant, Mr. Rajiv Singla, is one of the Partners of M/s. KundlasLohUdyog having office at Village BalyanaBuranwala, PO Barotiwala, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh174103. The complainant's firm is a reputed entity engaged in the business of 2. The accused persons namely Mr. Roop Ram Tak and Mr. SajanTak are both the Directors of Global Impex sp. z o. o. (an incorporated company as per laws of Poland) and Mr. PrawalTak is the Director of M/s. PSP International Trading LLC, (established as per laws of UAE). 3. The complainant is constrained to submit the present complaint against the accused individuals, Mr. Roopa Ram Tak, Mr. Sajan Tak, and Mr PrawalTak, and their respective companies used by them for causing
4 2025:HHC:26696
wrongful loss to the tune of USD 1,66,275.00 (current equivalent INR 1.38 Crore approx.) to the complainant and his firm, by making false representations with the dishonest intentions of thereby deceiving and inducing the complainant to pay huge sums of money to the accused persons/their companies on false pretext of sale of materials. The complainant was induced to pay USD 1,66,275.00 (current equivalent INR 1.38 Crore approx.) to the companies of the accused persons for the purchase of materials which the accused had no intention of supplying and ultimately, as a result of the dishonest and fraudulent representations only for inducing the complainant to pay huge sums of monies, the accused made wrongful gains for themselves and criminally misappropriated the monies paid by complainant and the complainant not only lost huge sums of money but no material also got delivered to his firm 4. A brief factual background of the case is submitted in the following paragraphs. 5.
The Accused, Mr. Roopa Ram Tak, in the month of September, 2023, having perhaps obtained complainant's contact details from industry sources, initiated contact with the complainant in relation to the supply of scrap (HMS scrap) to the complainant. Mr. Roopa Ram Tak had a telephonic communication via WhatsApp (Number) with the Complainant from Poland in September, 2023, representing that he and his family members were engaged in the business of supplying heavy melting scrap (HMS) through their aforesaid companies. Mr. Roopa Ram Tak represented that he and his son (Mr. Sajan Tak) were Directors of Global Impex sp. z o. o., Poland and Mr. PrawalTak (relationship with Mr. Roop Ram Tak to be stated here) was the Director of M/s. PSP International Trading LLC, Dubai. Mr. Roopa Ram Tak expressed his interest in supplying high grade melting serap to the complainant at lucrative and competitive rates from the said companies, thereby laying the foundation for a fraudulent scheme. 6. Subsequent to this initial contact, the Accused, Mr. Roopa Ram Tak, in order to further perpetuate the deception and inducement, even extended a
5 2025:HHC:26696
formal invitation to the Complainant, dated September 11, 2023, inviting him to Poland under the guise offering inspection of the materials available at Poland and finalizing the purported sale. The true copy of the invitation and the emails pertaining to the same are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE C1 (Colly.). 7. The Complainant being allured by said resentations of a profitable business opportunity, as projected by Mr. Roopa Ram Tak, travelled to Poland, and reached Warsaw on October 21, 2023. In order to execute a meticulously planned deception upon the complainant, upon the Complainant's visit to Poland, Mr. Roopa Ram Takalongwith his son Mr. Sajan Tak took the complainant to various locations like Wemet, Polzone, and Tom, etc., to allure the Complainant by showing availability of various types of ferrous scrap materials and further falsely projecting that such material available for sale. Mr. Roopa Ram Tak created this whole façade to play out a deception of a legitimate
business
dealing
upon
the complainant. The true copies of the accommodation letter, hotel booking and tickets are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE C2 (Colly.). 8.
During the complainant's aforesaid visit to Poland, no conclusive agreement regarding the sale was reached and the complainant came back to India. 9. In a furtherance of the agenda to deceive and cheat the complainant, the Accused in furtherance of the concerted acts with his other accomplices being SajanTak and PrawalTak Chandra Prakash Tak, Mr. Roopa Ram Tak, visited Delhi and met the complainant at the factory premises in Baddi on January 8, 2024. Mr. Roopa Ram Tak reiterated his proposal to supply large quantities of highgrade heavy melting scrap (HMS) from time to time from his company at Poland and Dubai and showed various photographs purportedly of the high quality material which, as represented by Mr. Roopa Ram Tak, would be supplying to the complainant at competitive prices. Mr. Roopa Ram Tak induced the complainantthat purchasing on 100% advance payment basis would ensure competitive pricing and timely delivery, within 30
6 2025:HHC:26696
45 days from payment, as and when the Complainant would need the supply of heavy melting scrap (HMS). Accordingly, being induced by the representations of the supply of highgrade HMS at competitive rates, the complainant agreed to the proposal of Mr. Roopa Ram Tak and thus decided purchase 225 MT (metric tons) heavy melting scrap (IMS) from M/s. Global Impex sp. z o. o., Poland. Subsequently, Global Impex through its Director Mr. SajanTak issued Proforma Invoice No. FP/1 dated 08.01.2024 for proposed sale of IIMS1 Scrap Qty. 225mt. @ USD 375.00 totaling to USD 84,375.00 on CNF Basis, the Post of Discharge being Mundra / Nhavasheva. Simultaneously, Global Impex through its Director Mr. Sajan Tak issued Invoice No. NK1/01/2024 of USD 84,375.00 for 225 MT Thereupon, a payment of USS 84,375 was made on
10.01.2024.
During said visit Roopa Ram Tak assured the Complainant and reiterated his representations and assured that all the material shall be delivered in proper order and timelines and stated that complainant is doing the right thing by entering into the business transaction with them. The true copy of the Proforma Invoice No. FP/1 dated 08.01 2024 and Invoice NK1/01/2024 dated 08.01.2024 qua sale/ purchase of quantity 225 MT with total price of USS 84,375/ along with the swift advice of remittance are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE C3 (Colly.). 10. Thereafter again accused persons stated that the earlier order is being executed and in case complainant wanted more material they can provide the same. In further to their representation Second Sale Contract and Agreement of Material Purchase for USD 42,000/ was also entered upon with M/s Global Impex sp. z o. o., Poland and a payment of USS 42,000/ was transferred on 01.03.2024. The true copy of the sale contract and agreement of material purchase with total price of USS 42,000/ along with the swift advice is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE C4 (Colly.). 11. In the series of events, in furtherance of and being induced by the false representations, the Complainant entered into a Third Sale Contract and Agreement
7 2025:HHC:26696
of Material Purchase of quantity 105 MT amounting of US$ 39,900/ with M/s PSP International Trading LLC, Dubai having Mr. PrawalTak as its Director and a payment of USS 39,900/ was transferred on 18.03.2024. The true copy of the sale contract and agreement of material purchase with total price of US$ 39,900/ along with the swift advice is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE C5 (Colly.) 12. Accordingly, being induced and deceived by the false representations (as aforesaid), the Complainant, in good faith, made advance payments to M/s. Global Impex sp.
z o. o., Poland and M/s PSP International Trading LLC, Dubai, through his firm (M/s. Kundlas LohUdyog), evidenced by the following remittances S. No. Transaction No / Date USD Bank a. 10.01.2024 84,375.00 HDFC Bank Ltd b. 01.03.2024 42,000.00 HDFC Bank Ltd.c. 18.03.2024 39,900.00 HDFC Bank Ltd. TOTAL 1,66,275.00 The true copy of the statement of accounts pertaining to transfer of payment are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE C6. 13. Thus, the complainant made huge payment of USD 84375 (current equivalent INR 70 lakhs approx.) and USD 42000 (current equivalent INR 34.86 lakhs approx.) to M/s. Global Impex sp. zo. o., Poland on 10.01.2024 and 01.03.2024 respectively, and also made huge payment of USD 39900 (current equivalent INR 33.11 Lakhs approx.) to M/s PSP International Trading LLC, Dubai on 18.03.2024, being influenced and deceived by the false representations of supply of heavy melting scrap (HMS). In all, till date, the complainant has made a total payment of USD 1,66,275.00 (current equivalent INR 1.38 Crore approx.) to the companies of the accused persons, on the representations of the accused. 14. However, despite the receipt of huge sums of monies, paid by the complainant from time to time, the accused persons did not supply any material whatsoever The complainant got anxious about the non delivery of materials and made repeated attempts to followup with the accused persons, both telephonically as well as via email However, the accused persons showed deliberate silence and
8 2025:HHC:26696
avoided the communication attempts. The printed copies of the emails pertaining to communication for status of material dispatch are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE C7 (Colly.). 15.
From the acts and omissions of the accused persons, it is clear that a wellplanned conspiracy was hatched against the complainant by the accused persons (who are also closely related to each other) to deceive and induce the complainant, by making false representations, to pay huge sums of money on the false pretext of supply of heavy melting scrap (HMS), while not having any intention whatsoever to actually supply any material to the complainant. The accused persons harbored dishonest intentions from the very beginning and thus systematically executed this entire fraudulent scheme of selling material to the complainant. The whole agenda was to somehow deceive the complainant to pay monies to the accused, and in furtherance of the agenda the accused initiated contact with the complainant and to further perpetuate the deception even took the complainant to various locations to show the purported materials which, as it has now become clear, the accused had no intention of supplying. The accused persons deceived and induced the complainant to pay huge sums of money to the accused persons/their companies on false pretext of sale of materials, which they never intended to sell. Ultimately, as a result of the dishonest and fraudulent representations only for inducing the complainant to pay huge sums of monies, the accused made wrongful gains for themselves and criminally misappropriated the monies paid by complainant and the complainant not only lost huge sums of money but no material also got delivered to his firm. It is pertinent to mention that till date no material whatsoever has been supplied to the complainant, despite the fact that on the representations of the accused the complainant paid huge sum of USD 1,66,275.00 (current equivalent INR 1.38 Crore approx.). In view of the above, it is most humbly requested that a case is registered against the accused persons, for the commission of cognizable offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating and
9 2025:HHC:26696
criminal misappropriation of money, and appropriate action is taken against them as per law. An early action in view of above submitted
facts may kindly be initiated under intimation to Complainant please.”
9. On the basis of above facts, police registered the case and thereafter, the criminal machinery swung into motion.
10. During
investigation,
on
01.08.2024, complainant was directed to submit the record. Consequently, he has submitted the relevant record regarding this case, which was taken into possession, by the police. Thereafter, the statement of witnesses, under Section 161 of CrPC, was recorded.
11. During investigation, complainant has disclosed that his friend Balwinder Garg from Delhi, who is dealing with the business of importing scrap, came to him, along with Roopa Ram Tak, on 07.01.2024. Prior to this, Roopa Ram Tak, in the month of September, 2023, requested the complainant to come to Polland, upon which, the complainant and Balwinder Garg, in the month of September, 2023, had gone to Polland, where, Roopa Ram Tak and Sajan Tak shown them the scrap.
10 2025:HHC:26696
12. As per the complainant, thereafter, in the month of January, 2024, Roopa Ram Tak came to the factory of the complainant at Boorawalan, where, the deal, regarding supply of 500 ton scrap, was finalized, between them @373 Dollars per ton. The total bargain was of Rs.1,60,00,000/,
out
of
which,
amount
of Rs.1,38,00,000/ was transferred in the company’s account of Roopa Ram Tak and 40,000 US Dollars were transferred in the account of Prawal Tak (applicant).
13. After depositing the money, number of times, efforts were made by the complainant to contact Roopa Ram Tak, but, neither Roopa Ram Tak, Sajan Tak and Prawal Tak (applicant) attended his call, nor any response has been given through email. They have even not supplied the scrap, nor returned the amount.
14. As per the further case of the police, the applicant, on 23.05.2025, had filed the application, under Section 482 of BNSS, before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nalagarh, vide which, he was
directed to join the investigation. Consequently, on 25/26.05.2025, the applicant has joined the investigation. 11 2025:HHC:26696
15. During investigation, the applicant has disclosed that PSP International Trading Company is in his name and situated at Dubai and dealing in scrap. The applicant has also disclosed that Roopa Ram Tak is his uncle, has informed him that he met with Rajesh Singla through Balwinder Singh, upon which, Balwinder and Rajesh Singla, had gone to Polland to meet his uncle. 16. It is the further case of the police that through Balwinder Garg, the applicant has supplied 13,000 tons of scrap to Kundlas Company and according to him, he has to supply 2750 tons more scrap to Rajiv Singla’s company i.e. Kundlas Company. However, on account of recession in rate, Balwinder Garg has not lifted the scrap. According to him, Rajiv Singla has deposited 84375 Dollars and 42000 Dollars, in the account of his son’s company (Sajan Tak), 39900 Dollars in the account of PSP Company, owned by Prawal Tak (applicant). Roopa Ram Tak has also assured that he and his son are ready to supply the scrap, as per the settlement. 17. After perusing the said status report, vide order dated 29.05.2025, interim protection was granted to the applicant and the matter was adjourned for 05.06.2025. 12 2025:HHC:26696
18. On 05.06.2025, fresh supplementary status report was filed, according to which, the applicant, during investigation, has stated that he is ready to send the scrap to Kundlas Loh Udyog, Barotiwala, in lieu of the 39900 US Dollars. 19. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for 19.06.2025 and thereafter on 4.7.2025, on which dates fresh status report with the similar facts have been filed. 20. In the status reports, which have been filed on different dates, it is the case of the police that the applicant is the residing in foreign country and in case, interim order is made absolute, he may create obstacle in the arrest of his coaccused Sajan Tak and may also flee from India. 21. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 22. The applicant has joined the investigation and according to the status report, filed by the police, he has shown his willingness to supply of the scrap. 23.
So far as the ground, which has been taken by the police in every status report to dismiss the application, that the recovery of US Dollars 39900/ is yet to be made,
13 2025:HHC:26696
in this case, is concerned, the recovery proceedings cannot be initiated by way of the custodial investigation. 24. The role, allegedly attributed by the applicant, in the crime, in question, will be proved, during the trial. Moreover, the arguments of learned counsel, appearing for the applicant, that the dispute, between the applicant and the complainant, is civil in nature, arising out of the alleged deficiency in supply of scrap, cannot be ignored, at this stage. 25. Considering the fact that the applicant has joined the investigation and also shown his intention to supply the complete scrap, this Court is of the opinion that the interim order, dated 29.05.2025, is liable to be confirmed. Therefore, it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No.106 of 2024, dated 22.07.2024, registered, under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, on his furnishing personal bond, in the sum of 5 ₹ 0,000/, with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions :
14 2025:HHC:26696
a) That the applicant will join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law; b) That the applicant will not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicant will not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and d) That the applicant shall regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application. 28.
28. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present bail application. 30. It is made clear that the respondentState is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found violated by the applicant. ( Virender Singh ) Judge August 08, 2025 (ps)