IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M- No…………of 2023

MEMO OF PARTIES

1. Prerna Sharma, aged about 37 years, wife of Sh. Rohit Bakshi,

resident of House No. 266-O, Mulberry Villa, Phase-1, Zone-1

Omaxe New Chandigarh, Mullanpur, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab-

140901, Aadhar Card No. ____________ Mobile No9810637160;

2. Rohit Bakshi, Director YKBK Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. aged about 39

years, son of Sh. Inder Kumar Bakshi, resident of House No. 266-O,

Mulberry Villa, Phase-1, Zone-1 Omaxe New Chandigarh, Mullanpur,

SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab – 140901, Aadhar Card No.

____________ Mobile No.9810636111;

3. Yoshiya Kato R/o Ferris Nishi-Shinjuku 105, 4-7-7 Nishi- Shinjuku-

Ku, Tokyo, Japan- 1600023.

…Petitioners
Versus
1. UT Chandigarh

2. Deepika Deshwal D/o Mahavir Singh, R/o Kothi No. 1015, Sector 21-

B, Chandigarh- 160022.

…Respondents
Place: Chandigarh
Dated: 10.06.2023

(Chanchal K. Singla) (R.S. Randhawa) (Dr BS Chauhan) & (Tarranum Madan)

P/176/2006 P/595/2003 P/284/1/A/2014 PH/3523/2022
PH221186 PH224287
Advocates
Counsels for the Petitioners
 PETITION under Section 482 Cr.P.C, praying

for quashing of FIR No. 0018 dated 05.02.2022

under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC registered

at Police Station North, Chandigarh being an

abuse of process of court as the matter being

purely a civil dispute and also the FIR being

registered at Chandigarh due to the influence of

complainant who was Assistant Advocate

General, Punjab during the previous Congress

regime and also claims herself to be relative of

Former SSP, Chandigarh Sh. Kuldeep Chahal

and is an attempt to blackmail and extort money

by abusing the process of law.

AND/OR

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit in the light of peculiar facts and

circumstances of the present case.

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the petitioners are directors of a company namely M/s YKBK

Enterprises Private Limited duly registered under Companies Act and

is an Indo-Japanese collaboration having two Japanese and two Indian

Directors. The Petitioner no. 2 Rohit Bakshi is an international

basketball player having studied in Japan and UK and has also

represented the Japanese team in various international events and

Petitioner no. 1 is a sleeping director of the company and is a mother

 of triplet Anayat Sharma Bakshi , Noor Sharma Bakshi And Zara

Sharma Bakshi and is engaged mostly in the upbringing of three

daughters of the same age .

2. That an FIR No. 0018 dated 05.02.2022 under Sections 420 and 120-

B of IPC was registered at Police Station North, Chandigarh at the

instance of one Deepika Deshwal, resident of Chandigarh. The

complainant alleged that she is a renowned sports celebrity and is

enjoying good reputation in her trade. The complainant also alleged

that she was instrumental in getting the MOU done with Government

of Punjab for conduct of 3X3 Basketball events in State of Punjab.

She alleged that the petitioners did not honor the agreement done with

the Government of Punjab in letter and spirit and thereby cheated

Government of Punjab and herself. The complainant also alleged that

she has left many projects because of her dedication towards the

petitioner’s company YKBK Enterprises which caused her loss of

future income of Rs.1 crore. The copy of FIR No. 0018 dated

05.02.2022 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-1.

3. That the complainant failed to mention here that she is an advocate by

profession and during the alleged period of transactions she was

posted as Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. She could not have

professed any trade or busi8ness while holding a valid license to

practice as she is enrolled with Bar Council of Delhi vide enrollment

No.____. Moreover, the complainant was a full time engaged law

officer of Government of Punjab and was in no manner entitled to any

private business or trade. The copy of the identity card issued by the
 Advocate General Office, Punjab is annexed herewith as Annexure

P-2.

4. That the petitioner’s company namely YKBK Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

successfully organized a 3X3 Basketball league in 6 cities in India

from 9th June 2018 to 26th August 2018 and World Masters

Tournament in Hyderabad from 22nd to 23rd September 2018. The

petitioner’s company engaged the services of one event management

company run by one Mandeep Thakran, Sourabh Yadav and Narender

Taylor. These persons allegedly were owners of a company namely

Ten Square Events and Promotions Pvt. Ltd. registered at #464, VPO

Kanhai, Sector 45, Gurugram. The above said persons were able to

extract more than Rs.2 crores from the petitioner’s company which

were paid through banking transactions and a total amount of

Rs.2,04,91,705.50/- were paid to Sourabh Yadav and others who

allegedly owned the above mentioned fake company Ten Square

Events and Promotions Pvt. Ltd.

5. That the petitioners on coming to know that Sourabh Yadav and

Mandeep Thakran etc. have submitted exaggerated bills and have

claimed false payments from the company, checked the backgrounds

of the companies namely Ten Squares Events and Promotions Pvt. Ltd

and to their utter shock it was found that no such company in the

name of Ten Square Events and Promotions Pvt. Ltd is registered with

Registrar of Companies anywhere in India. The copy of the report

downloaded from the ministry of Corporate Affairs is annexed

herewith as Annexure P-3.

6. That the above said Mandeep Thakran, when the relations were

cordial, introduced the present complainant Deepika Deshwal as a

former Olympian and a sports enthusiast like the petitioner no.2 and

convinced the petitioner no.2 that she wanted to promote sports in

India out of her nationalist spirit purely on charitable basis. However,

later on it was revealed that she is not any Olympian or a sports

enthusiast but was acting in connivance with Mandeep Thakran and

others in order to cheat and extort money as Mandeep Thakran and

others have judged the petitioners to be gullible people who do not

have any understanding of Indian system and prospective business

frauds.

7. That the petitioner no.2 deposed faith in Deepika Deshwal who was

already hand in glove with some of the corrupt officials of Punjab

Government and allured the petitioners that she can get sponsorships

and funds to promote 3X3 Basketball League Tournaments in Punjab.

In order to win confidence of the petitioner’s company she also

showed her pictures with some big political and sports personalities

such as President of India, Chief Minister and also with Sh. Khubi

Ram, Former Additional Director General of Police, Punjab. She also

arranged meetings with sports minister Punjab and Sh. Khubi Ram

ADGP who was posted in CM security.

8. That in order to promote the basketball events being organized by the

company of petitioners namely YKBK Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., a press

conference was hosted on 20.06.2019 at Hotel Grand, New Delhi

where Deepika Deshwal invited some of the guests which included

Sangram Singh, Shankar Sahni, Manoj Kumar (MDKD)without any

 confirmation from the company. The true colors of Deepika Deshwal

and her accomplice were revealed when the complainant started

demanding payments for inviting the guests and thus, the petitioner’s

company was forced to pay a sum of Rs.3,47,000/- on 27.06.2019 in

the bank account of some unknown person namely Sangram Singh,

Rs. 50,000/- on 25.06.2019 to Shankar Sahni and Rs. 50,000/- on

25.06.2019 to Manoj Kumar. Thus, on the pretext of inviting in the

press conference, Deepika Deshwal and Mandeep Thakran cheated

the petitioners to the tune of Rs.4,47,000/-. Apart from this, Mandeep

Thakran and Sourabh Yadav raised a huge bill for organizing the

press conference. The copy of the details of the payment made to

Sangram Singh and others is annexed herewith as Annexure P-4.

9. That complainant Deepika Deshwal also portrayed that she has got

very good relations with the then Sports Minister Sh. Rana Gurmit

Sodhi and she wants to take the minister to some International events

being organized by the petitioner’s company so that the minister can

get the firsthand experience of the 3X3 Basket Event. She and Sh.

Rana Gurmit Sodhi were sent to Amsterdam where FIBA 3X3 World

Cup was being organized from 21.06.2019 to 23.06.2019. The

petitioners company bore the expenses which included air fare of

Rs.2,20,000/-, total expenses Rs. 65,000/-, road fare of Rs. 15,000/-

etc. The company was forced to bear these expenses by the

complainant Deepika Deshwal.

10. That soon after the meeting with the then Chief Minister of Punjab,

Sports Minister and trip to Amsterdam the complainant Deepika

started demanding Rs. 2,00,00,000 (Rupees Two Crore only) in cash

by claiming that this money has to be paid to ADGP, Khubiram and

Sh. Rana Gurmit Sodhi, then Sports Minister of Punjab. The

petitioner's company flatly refused to pay any such money as the

Japanese conduct their business in most honest way and there is no

provision to pay any amount in cash for any liasioning work, etc. The

complainant started claiming that she was instrumental in getting one

MOU signed from the Government of Punjab and she is entitled to Rs.

2,00,00,000 (Rupees Two Crores only) which are to be further shared

with ADGP, Khubiram and Sh. Rana Gurmit Sodhi, however,

petitioner’s company and petitioner no.2 never acted upon that MOU

as that MOU was only a simple paper talking about the promotion of

sports in Punjab which is the duty of every Sports Minister and no

benefit of any sort was being accorded to the petitioner’s company.

The copy of the MOU signed with the Punjab Government is annexed

herewith as Annexure P-5.

11. That the petitioner’s company paid Rs. 5,00,000 on 18.11.2019 in the

bank account of the mother of the complainant, Smt. Naresh Devi, and

further, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 13.04.2020 was transferred in the

bank account of complainant; Rs. 50,000/- on 30.06.2020 was

transferred in the bank account of complainant; Rs. 2,50,000/- on

11.11.2020 was transferred in the bank account of complainant; Thus,

Rs. 59,00,000/- has been extorted by the complainant Deepika

 Deshwal alone apart from other payments made to her

associates/accomplice and other expenses borne by the petitioner’s

company. The copy of the relevant extract of the payment details is

annexed herewith as Annexure P-6.

12. That all these payments have been fraudulently received by

complainant Deepika Deshwal, irrespective of the fact that there was

no agreement executed between the petitioner’s company and

complainant Deepika Deshwal and further it has come to the

knowledge of the petitioners and their company that complainant has

forged various documents alleging them to be MOU's, however no

such document or agreement was ever signed by any of the petitioners

or any of their representatives.

13. That the company chose not to deal with such criminal people again.

That apart from the above Rs. 12,00,000/-, complainants Saurabh

Yadav and Mandeep Thakran had also taken more than 2,04,00,000/-

on various dates through banking transactions from the petitioner’s

company for small works done by some other vendors claiming

themselves to be big event planners. Once their frauds were

discovered, the company refused to deal with them in any manner.

Then Mandeep Thakran attacked petitioner no.2, Sh. Rohit Bakshi on

13.03.2020 when he was attending a birthday party of a child of one

of the employees. In this regard FIR no. 217 dated 14.03.2020 under

section 323, 34, 341, 506 IPC at the Police Station Sadar, Gurugram

was also registered against Mandeep Thakran. Mandeep Thakran also

 threatened the petitioners that in case Deepika Deshwal is not paid, he

would kill the entire family. The copy of the FIR No. 217 dated

14.03.2020 registered at Police Station Sadar, Gurugram against

Mandeep Thakran and others is annexed herewith as Annexure P-7.

14. That in order to extort money, Mandeep Thakran, Saurabh Yadav,

Narender Taylor and few others entered the office of the petitioner's

company and threatened the staff who got so scared that they

approached Police Station, Sadar, Gurugram and complained the

matter which was resolved after the intervention of the police.

15. That the complainant Deepika Deshwal always boasted that she has

got connections with high-ranking police officials, ministers and also

hardened criminals operating gangs in Haryana whose job is to extract

struck money with the corporates. In order to pressurize, the

petitioners and their company, complainant Deepika Deshwal through

Saurabh Yadav made a false and fabricated complaint before the

Commissioner of Police, Gurugram for non-payment of funds for

organizing events despite accused Saurabh Yadav and Narender

Taylor having received Rs. 2,04,91,705 from the petitioner’s

company. After thorough investigation, the complaint was found to be

false by the Gurugram Police being a matter of civil nature. The copy

of the complaint dated 13.10.2020, copy of the reply dated 02.11.2020

and the copy of the investigation report dated 04.11.2020 received

through RTI dated 18.12.2020 are annexed herewith as Annexure P-

8, Annexure P-9 and Annexure P-10 respectively.

16. That the complainant Deepika Deshwal was not successful in

Gurugram in registering a false case against the petitioners and she

using her influence as Assistant Advocate general, Punjab with the

help of ADGP Khubi Ram got registered FIR No.370 dated

16.10.2021 under sections 420, 120B IPC at Police Station Sohana,

SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab) against the petitioners on the same

allegations as levelled in the complaint dated 13.10.2020 filed before

EO Wing, Gurugram. The Mohali Police went ahead to register an

FIR despite being fully aware that no cause of action ever arose at

Mohali as both the companies are located in Gurugram and all

transactions took place there. The copy of FIR No.370 dated

16.10.2021 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-11.

17. That the interim protection was granted to the petitioners, during the

course of hearing when DSP who conducted the inquiry was called

upon to explain how the FIR was registered at Mohali and how the

criminal offences are made out, however, the police had no

explanation and thereafter, went ahead to file a cancellation report

dated 17.01.2022 stating that no offence is made out at Mohali and the

dispute was purely of civil nature which has been given the nature of

criminal color. The copy of the report recommending cancellation

dated 17.01.2022 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-12.

18. That however, learned JMIC, Mohali, ordered further investigation

on objection being raised by complainant Sourabh Yadav vide order

dated 02.04.2022, copy of the same is annexed herewith as Annexure

P-13.
19. That even after further investigation, police again reached to the

conclusion that a false case has been registered against the petitioners

in order to pressurize them to make illegal payments to the

complainant. The same is pending consideration before learned JMIC,

SAS Nagar, Mohali. The next date of hearing is 05.07.2023. The copy

of the order dated 25.04.2023 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-14.

20. That the complainant Deepika Deshwal did not stop here and

continued her blackmailing and extortionist tactics by lodging another

false and fabricated FIR at Chandigarh claiming that she has to

receive the Liasoning amount from the company and also she paid Rs.

20 lakhs to purchase a team of the basketball league. The claim is

highly absurd and beyond belief. All the teams were sold through an

auction process and the payments were received through banking

transactions only.

21. That the police ignored the reply dated 06.11.2021 narrating all the

facts to the complaint dated 15.09.2021 by Deepika Deshwal. The

petitioner also made a complaint dated 07.11.2021 to IG Ropar range

and others regarding misuse of her official position by the then

Assistant Advocate General of Punjab, Deepika Deshwal. The copy of

the reply dated 06.11.2021 to the complaint dated 15.09.2021 which

ultimately culminated in the impugned FIR is annexed herewith as

Annexure P- 15 and the complaint against Punjab police officials for

harassment on the instructions of complainant Deepika Deshwal is

annexed herewith as Annexure P-16.

22. That when the basketball league was being held at Mohali club in the

month of March 2022, Deepika Deshwal using her influence with UT

Police claiming that she is relative of the then SSP Kuldeep Chahal

got a 41A notice issued to the petitioner no.1 & 2 to join the

investigation. The notice was issued on 05.03.2022 to appear before

Inspector Jaspal Singh at 11 am on 07.03.2022. The perusal of the

notice clearly reveals that 7 days notice was not issued as required

under law. Furthermore, when the petitioners were to appear on

07.03.2022 before the investigating officer, the SHO’s namely

Inspector Omprakash, Inspector Jaspal and one more SHO alongwith

police staff picked up the petitioner no.2 from Mohali club in front of

all the national and international players and threatened to stall the

event on the night of 06.03.2022 took the petitioner to local police

station at Mohali near Hotel Wyndham and got an entry made to local

police station that they are taking him for enquiry to Chandigarh

police station. All the players, television crew, referees, international

observers got scared and followed the police party to Police Station

North, Chandigarh. The petitioner was forced to sign a compromise

and also a cheque no.839293 amounting to Rs. 45 Lakhs in lieu of full

and final settlement. The petitioner was illegally abducted, confined

and was pressurized to part with Rs.45 Lakhs. The petitioner however,

decided not to take any legal step and thought Rs. 45 Lakhs to be the

buying peace. The copy of the notice under section 41A dated

05.03.2022 and settlement dated 06.03.2022 arrived at PS North is

annexed herewith as Annexure P-17 and Annexure P-18.

23. That the entire incident was also recorded in the CCTV cameras

installed at Mohali club and also many videos were recorded by

players and others associated with the event. The pen drive showing

the footage is annexed herewith as Annexure P-17 (Do we have any

footage as mentioned herein?).

24. That despite entering into full and final settlement and cheating the

petitioners worth crores of rupees, the complainant is not coming

forward to get the FIR quashed nor the police is filing the cancellation

report as promised when the petitioner was forced to part with Rs. 45

lakhs. The copy of the bank statement regarding transfer of the

amount is annexed herewith as Annexure P-19.

25. That the police has also violated the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court as set out in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014)

8 SCC 273, which is as follows:-

a) All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to

automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC

is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for

arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing

from Section 41, Cr.P.C.;

b) All police officers be provided with a check list containing

specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

c) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and

furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest,

while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for

further detention;
 d) The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall

peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms

aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate

will authorize detention;

e) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the

Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the

case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the

Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be

recorded in writing;

f) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served

on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the

case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of

the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

g) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from

rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental

action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of

court to be instituted before High Court having territorial

jurisdiction.

h) Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by

the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental

action by the appropriate High Court.

26. That the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR on following grounds: -

a. BECAUSE even on the bare perusal of the FIR no offence is

made out. The complainant is seeking recovery of dues on

account of performance of a contract. Hence, it is a purely

 civil dispute which has been given the color of criminal

mlitigation in order to malafidely harass and harm the

petitioners. Thus, dispute is purely covered under the ratio of

principles envisaged in case State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

1992 AIR (SC) 604 and Indian Oil Corporations V. M/S

NEPC India Ltd. R.C.R (Criminal) 740.

b. BECAUSE the complainant cannot allege that the petitioners

had fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction as

she had already received crores of rupess through banking

transactions and once the petitioners company came to know

about the exaggerated and fake bills only when the payments

were stopped and the petitioners company is contemplating

the recovery of this payment by availing appropriate remedy

under law.

c. BECAUSE the Hon’ble supreme Court of India has held in

the case of Prof. R.K. Vijyasarathy & another V. Sudha

Seetharam & Anr. 2019 (5) R.C.R (Criminal) 537 that when

the complaint does not disclose the ingredients necessary to

constitute the offences under the penal code and complainant

has made an attempt to0 cloak a civil dispute with criminal

nature despite the absence of ingredients necessary to

constitute criminal offence, the FIR is liable to be quashed.

Section 415 and Section 420 are hereby reproduced for the

ready reference of this Hon’ble Court:-

415. Cheating. —Whoever, by deceiving any person,

fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to

 deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any

person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the

person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he

would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act

or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that

person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. —

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person

deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make,

alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or

anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of

being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term which may

extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

d. BECAUSE the Hon’ble supreme Court of India has held in

the case of M/s Technofab Engineering Ltd. anr v. Bengal

Mills Stores Supply Co. and Anr. 2016 (3) R.C.R (Criminal)

913 that criminal proceedings cannot continue for breach of

contract; FIR was quashed because looking into the substance

of the complaint no case of cheating was made out.

e. BECAUSE the Hon’ble supreme Court of India has held in

the case of Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati vs. CBI AIR 2003

SC 2545 as well as Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat (2009) 3 SCC

78, that for establishing the offence of cheating, the

complainant is required to show in the FIR that the accused

had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making

 promise of representation, and from his making failure to keep

up promise subsequently, such a culpable intention right at the

beginning that is at the time when the promise was made

cannot be presumed.

f. BECAUSE the Hon’ble supreme Court of India has held in

the case of Vesa Holdings P. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2015) 8

SCC 293, that every breach of contract would not give rise to

an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of

contract would amount to cheating where there was any

deception played at the very inception. The Apex Court

further observed that if the intention to cheat has developed

later on, the same cannot amount to cheating as for the

purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the

complainant is required to show that the accused had

fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making

promise or representation. Thus, criminal proceedings shall

not be encouraged when it is found to be malafide or

otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

g. BECAUSE the Hon’ble supreme Court of India has held in

the case of Sushil Sethi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh AIR

2020 SC 765, that when a dispute between the parties

constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, courts

would not permit a person to be harassed although no case for

taking cognizance of the offence has been made out.

h. BECAUSE the case of the petitioners is covered under the

guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State

of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 AIR (SC) 604. The Supreme

Court has issued seven guidelines which should be followed

by the Court in the exercise of its inherent power vested by

section 482 Cr.P.C., which are as follows: -

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 FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,

justifying and 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 FIR 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 FIR 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 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.

27. That the petitioners have no other equally efficacious remedy

available to him except to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of

filing the present petition.

28. That the petitioner has not filed any other such or similar petition

earlier either in this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present petition may

kindly be allowed for quashing of FIR No. 0018 dated 05.02.2022 under

Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC registered at Police Station North,

Chandigarh being an abuse of process of court as the matter being purely a

civil dispute and also the FIR being registered at Chandigarh due to the

influence of complainant who was Assistant Advocate General, Punjab

during the previous Congress regime and also claims herself to be relative of

Former SSP, Chandigarh Sh. Kuldeep Chahal and is an attempt to blackmail

and extort money by abusing the process of law, in the interest of justice,

equity and fair play.

It is, further respectfully prayed that during the pendency of the

present petition all the further proceedings arising out from the FIR may

kindly be stayed, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.

It is, further respectfully prayed that the petitioner may kindly be

exempted from filing the certified, legible and true typed copies of the

Annexures, as the case may be, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.

Note: Affidavit is attached in support.

Place: Chandigarh
Dated: 10.06.2023

(Chanchal K. Singla) (R.S. Randhawa) (Dr BS Chauhan) & (Tarranum Madan)

P/176/2006 P/595/2003 P/284/1/A/2014 PH/3523/2022
PH221186 PH224287
 Advocates
Counsels for the Petitioners

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M- No……………..of 2023

Prerna Sharma and Others …Petitioners

Versus

UT Chandigarh and Another …Respondents

Affidavit of Vivek Thapliyal, aged about 32

years, son of Sh. Om Prakash Thapliyal,

 resident of MM 6 SF 2, DLF, Ankur Vihar,

Loni, Ghaziabad, 201102., Mobile no.

9911523210.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare

as under:

1. That the deponent being the authorized representative of the

petitioners is filing the accompanying petition in this Hon’ble Court

and is well conversant with the facts of the present petition.

2. That the facts narrated in the petition are true and correct to my

knowledge as per the information derived from the official record, no

part of it is false and nothing has been concealed therein.

3. That no such or similar petition has been filed by the deponent either

in this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

4. That the deponent is annexing the copy of his Aadhaar Card No.

8995 3411 0049 with the accompanying petition as a proof of his

identity & residence and his Mobile No. is 9911523210.

Chandigarh (Vivek Thapliyal)

Dated: Deponent

VERIFICATION:-
 Verified that the contents of my above said affidavit are true and

correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing has been

concealed therein.

Chandigarh (Vivek Thapliyal)

Dated: Deponent
 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M- No……………..of 2023

Prerna Sharma and Others …Petitioners

Versus

UT Chandigarh and Another …Respondents

INDEX
Sr. Particulars of the case Date Page Court-fees
No.

Urgent Form 10.06.2023 A 3-00

1. Petition u/s 482 of 10.06.2023 1-18 3-00

C.r.P.C

2. Affidavit in Support .10.2022 19-20 --

3. Annexure P-1 16.10.2021 21-33 9-00

(Copy of FIR No.0018)

4. Annexure P-2 34 1-00

(Information from MCA

website)

5. Annexure P-3 35 1-00

(Copy of Fake Invoice)

6. Annexure P-4 36-43 5-00

(Copy of Undated Legal

Notice)

7. Annexure P-5 14.02.2020 44-48 2-00

(Copy of Reply)

8. Annexure P-6 14.03.2020 49-53 4-00

(Copy of FIR No. 217)

9. Annexure P-7 13.10.2020 54-58 4-00

(Copy of Complaint)
 10. Annexure P-8 02.11.2020 59-76 12-00
(Copy of Reply)

11. Annexure P-9 18.12.2020 77-81 4-00

(Copy of RTI)

12. Annexure P-10 17.01.2022 82-85 3-00

(Copy of Report)

13. Annexure P- 11 02.04.2022 86-88 2-00

(Copy of Order)

14. Annexure P-12 06.09.2022 89-102 10-00

(Copy of Email sending

Representation)

15. Annexure P-13 13.09.2022 103-104 3-00

(Copy of Order)

VERNACULARS

16. Annexure P-1 16.10.2021 105-120 --

(Copy of FIR No.370)

17. Annexure P-6 14.03.2020 121-127 --

(Copy of FIR No. 217)

18. Annexure P-9 18.12.2020 128-130 --

(Copy of RTI)

19. Annexure P-10 17.01.2022 131-132 --

(Copy of Report)

20. Power of Attorney along 10.10.2022 133-135 3-00

with Authorisation Letter
and copy of ID proof

Total Court Fees Rs 69-00/-

Note:
1. Any other similar case or not: NO
2. Whether any MP/MLA is involved in the present case or not: NO

Place: Chandigarh
Dated: 10.06.2023
(Chanchal K. Singla) (R.S. Randhawa) (Dr BS Chauhan) & (Tarranum Madan)
P/176/2006 P/595/2003 P/284/1/A/2014 PH/3523/2022
PH221186 PH224287
Advocates
Counsels for the Petitioners
 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M- No……………..of 2023

Prerna Sharma and Others …Petitioners

Versus

UT Chandigarh and Another …Respondents

COURT FEE AFFIXED

Place: Chandigarh
Dated: 10.06.2023

(Chanchal K. Singla) (R.S. Randhawa) (Dr BS Chauhan) & (Tarranum Madan)

P/176/2006 P/595/2003 P/284/1/A/2014 PH/3523/2022
PH221186 PH224287
Advocates
Counsels for the Petitioners
 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M- No……………..of 2023

To,
The Addl. Registrar,
High Court, Chandigarh

TITLE OF CASE

Prerna Sharma and Others …Petitioners

Versus

UT Chandigarh and Another …Respondents

Sir,

Will you kindly treat the accompanying petition as an urgent one in

accordance with the provisions of Rule 9, Chapter 3-A, Rules and Order

High Court Volume V.

The Grounds of Urgency are:-

Yours Faithfully

Place: Chandigarh
Dated: 10.06.2023

(Chanchal K. Singla) (R.S. Randhawa) (Dr BS Chauhan) & (Tarranum Madan)

P/176/2006 P/595/2003 P/284/1/A/2014 PH/3523/2022
PH221186 PH224287
Advocates
Counsels for the Petitioners