Kanika Dhingra vs State Of U.P.

Headnote AI-drafted · Editorially reviewed

The present bunch of bail applications arose out of three FIRs registered at Police Station Noida Sector-20, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, alleging fraudulent procurement of GST registrations by misusing PAN cards of innocent individuals without their knowledge or consent. The applicants, Kanika Dhingra and others, were neither named in the FIRs nor chargesheeted in the initial investigation completed up to 29.08.2023, but were subsequently implicated through supplementary investigation allegedly taken cue from a complaint filed by DGGI, Meerut under the CGST Act, 2017 before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.

The Court noted that the allegations concerning M/s Good Health Industries Pvt. Ltd., M/s AKS Traders, and M/s YOYO Traders and their input tax credit transactions had already been investigated by DGGI, Meerut, and a complaint under the CGST Act, 2017 had been filed in Case No. 1942 of 2023. The husband of applicant Kanika Dhingra, Sanjay Dhingra, who was already facing prosecution under the CGST Act, had been granted bail by this Court on 03.08.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32951 of 2023. The Court observed the apparent duplication of proceedings arising from the same set of facts under both IPC and the CGST Act.

The judgment examines the interplay between criminal prosecution under IPC provisions relating to forgery and cheating and the special statutory regime under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in the context of fraudulent GST registration using third-party PAN card details, raising significant questions about double jeopardy, the scope of investigation, and the maintainability of parallel proceedings for the same cause of action.

Catchwords: bail application fraudulent GST registration misuse of PAN card forgery cheating input tax credit CGST Act parallel proceedings double jeopardy supplementary investigation DGGI special enactment