MOHIT SABHARWAL vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

[2026:RJ-JD:54124]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5022/2026
CNR: RJHC010602682026 | URN: CRLMP / 9031U / 2026
1. Mohit Sabharwal, Aged About 42 Years, Authorised
Representative, Global Link Commodity Pvt Ltd, Global
Link Commodities, B-803, Reach 3 Roads Mall, Sector 70,
Gurugram (Haryana)-122001.
2. Sudhir Sharma, Aged About 40 Years, Employee, Global
Link Commodity Pvt Ltd, Global Link Commodities, B-803,
Reach 3 Roads Mall, Sector 70, Gurugram (Haryana)-
122001.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Subham Sigal S/o Shri Sanjay Sigal, R/o 14, 347/1, Vyas
Dental Collage Ke Pas, Kudi Bhagtasani, Kudi Bhagtasni,
Jodhpur City West, Rajasthan, India.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. Shiva with
Mr. Rahul Yaduvanshi and
Mr. Piyush Chouhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Ravindra Singh Bhati, PP
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Akshay Surana
Mr. Tarun Dudia
Mr. Pulkit Surana
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Reportable
Order
Conclusion of Arguments &
Reserved on : 26/10/2026
Pronounced on : 04/11/2026
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS
seeking quashing of the FIR No.177/2026 registered at Police
Station Kudi Bhagtasni, District Jodhpur City West alleging
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:57:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:37:00 PM)

(2 of 14)
[2026:RJ-JD:54124] [CRLMP-5022/2026]
offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2) & 61(2) BNS and Section
66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. The facts of the case are the impugned FIR came to be
lodged by the complainant alleging that he is the proprietor of
Renaissance Agri, a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of
pulses. It was alleged that in August 2025, Mohit Sabharwal,
stated to be associated with Global Link Commodity Pvt. Ltd.,
approached the complainant with an offer to purchase 250 metric
tonnes of Australian-origin Whole Red Lentils Nipper No.1 at USD
610 per metric tonne, assuring the complainant that the
transaction would be facilitated under a Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ)
Certificate, thereby yielding substantial profits and exemption
from import duty. Pursuant thereto, a sales contract dated
18.08.2025 was executed between Renaissance Agri as the buyer
and Marina Commodity as the seller, and the complainant remitted
an advance payment of USD 7,625, equivalent to Rs.6,91,384, on
07.10.2025. However, when the complainant subsequently sought
the TRQ Certificate, it was informed on 25.11.2025 that the quota
for the year 2025 had expired.
2.1. It was further alleged that the shipment was dispatched
without timely intimation to the complainant regarding its dispatch
and the requisite original documents. Although the complainant
was informed that the vessel would arrive at Kolkata Port on
20.01.2026 and that the original documents had been sent to the
bank, the documents were received by the bank only on
11.02.2026, after expiry of the free detention period. The
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:57:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:37:00 PM)

(3 of 14)
[2026:RJ-JD:54124] [CRLMP-5022/2026]
complainant alleges that despite repeated communications, the
accused persons failed to provide timely updates and
subsequently assured that the detention and demurrage charges
would be borne by the seller. The complainant claimed that,
relying upon these assurances, he agreed to facilitate customs
clearance and, on 19.03.2026, delivered the original documents to
the clearing agent. On 20.03.2026, he also transferred
Rs.23,00,000 towards customs duty and clearing charges to RKA
Logistic Pvt. Ltd.
2.2. It is further alleged in the FIR that pursuant to the
arrangement proposed by Marina Commodity, the consignment
was delivered to a new buyer, New Tea Impex Pvt. Ltd., on
25.03.2026. However, despite repeated requests, the complainant
was neither reimbursed the advance payment and expenses
incurred nor compensated for the alleged losses. It was alleged
that Global Link Commodity Pvt. Ltd. and Marina Commodity,
acting in concert, dishonestly induced the complainant to enter
into the transaction, misappropriated the advance amount and the
money paid towards customs duty and clearing charges, and
caused a liability of USD 1,51,084.80 to be imposed upon the
complainant in respect of the bank transaction. The complainant
further alleged that, instead of reimbursing the amounts claimed,
the seller demanded payment towards detention and demurrage
charges by email dated 02.04.2026.
2.3. On the basis of the allegations of cheating, criminal breach of
trust and conspiracy, the complainant filed the impugned FIR.
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:57:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:37:00 PM)

(4 of 14)
[2026:RJ-JD:54124] [CRLMP-5022/2026]
Aggrieved by the lodging of the same, the present petition has
been filed by the accused – Mohit Sabharwal and Sudhir Sharma
who are representatives of Global Link Commodity Pvt. Ltd.
seeking quashing of the said FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while arguing the
present petition, made the following submissions:-
(i) The transaction was governed by the Business Confirmation
dated 15.08.2025 and the Sales Contract dated 18.08.2025,
executed between Marina Commodities Inc., as seller, and
Renaissance Agri, as buyer, with Global Link Commodities Pte. Ltd.
acting as broker. The petitioners were neither sellers nor buyers,
importers, consignees or owners of the goods and had merely
facilitated the transaction through commercial coordination. They
neither issued invoices nor received any consideration.
(ii) The essential ingredients of cheating under Section 318(4)
BNS are not made out, as there was no deception or dishonest
inducement at the inception of the transaction. The Sales Contract
did not make the transaction conditional upon issuance of a TRQ
Certificate. The complainant sought the certificate only on
13.11.2025 and 24.11.2025, by which time the 2025 quota had
expired. Thus, the allegation regarding the TRQ Certificate, at
best, concerned subsequent contractual performance and did not
establish any initial dishonest intention.
(iii) The ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Section
316(2) BNS are also made out as the petitioners neither received
the advance payment of Rs.6,91,384, which was transferred
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:57:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:37:00 PM)

(5 of 14)
[2026:RJ-JD:54124] [CRLMP-5022/2026]
directly to Marina Commodities Inc., nor the amount of
Rs.23,00,000 paid towards customs duty and CHA charges, which
was transferred to RKA Logistic Pvt. Ltd. No property was
entrusted to the petitioners, nor did they exercise any dominion or
beneficial interest over the same.
(iv) The allegation of criminal conspiracy under Section 61(2)
BNS is vague and unsupported by any material. Mere
correspondence or coordination between parties in the course of a
commercial transaction does not establish criminal conspiracy.
Further, Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, is
not attracted, as there is no allegation of cheating by personation
through a computer resource or electronic communication and the
emails exchanged were ordinary commercial communications
between known parties.
(v) The allegations concerning delay in shipment updates,
receipt of original documents, Bill of Entry, expiry of free detention
period, demurrage, detention and market losses arose out of
contractual and commercial dealings. The FIR itself refers to the
revised arrangement proposed by Marina on 11.03.2026, under
which the complainant agreed, subject to conditions, to facilitate
customs clearance and adjust the amounts paid. The goods were
thereafter delivered to New Tea Impex Pvt. Ltd. on 25.03.2026.
Thus, the dispute essentially concerns reimbursement of
expenses, outstanding payments and settlement of accounts, for
which civil remedies are available.
(vi) Reliance was placed on following judgments:-
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:57:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:37:00 PM)

(6 of 14)
[2026:RJ-JD:54124] [CRLMP-5022/2026]
(a)- Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P.;
(2024) 10 SCC 690
(b)- Bharateesh Reddy Vs. Ramesh Ranganathan;
(2022) 16 SCC 210
(c)- Vijay Kumar Ghai Vs. State of West Bengal;
(2022) 7 SCC 124
(d)- Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma Vs. State of Bihar;
(2000) 4 SCC 168
(e)- State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal; AIR 1992 SC
604
(f)- Somnath Puri Vs. State of Rajasthan; (1972) 1
SCC 630
3.1. Based on the above submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the dispute relates to the performance
of contractual obligations and subsequent settlement negotiations
between the parties and the criminal proceedings have been
initiated to give a criminal colour to a commercial dispute.
Accordingly, the present FIR is a gross abuse of process of law and
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2, while refuting the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, made
the following the submissions:-
(i) The petitioners have suppressed material facts and
selectively placed electronic correspondence on record. During the
visit of the investigating officials to their office at Gurugram on
15.06.2026, the petitioners sought one week’s time to arrange
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:57:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:37:00 PM)

(7 of 14)
[2026:RJ-JD:54124] [CRLMP-5022/2026]
refund of the amount claimed by the complainant. Such conduct
and non-disclosure of material facts disentitle them from seeking
discretionary relief.
(ii) The petitioners are attempting to portray a premeditated
criminal conspiracy as a mere commercial dispute by projecting
themselves as neutral brokers acting between the buyer and the
foreign seller . The petitioners were not mere brokers but had
actively induced the complainant to enter into the transaction by
offering attractive rates, insisting upon a 5% advance and
assuring supply of goods and reimbursement of subsequent
expenses. Global Link Commodities was being operated from the
petitioners’ office at Gurugram under the guise of a Singapore-
based entity. Their actual role in the transaction, therefore,
requires investigation. As a matter of fact, the petitioners have
incorporated various shell companies at foreign address and are
using the same to extort money from genuine buyers.
(iii) The Business Confirmation dated 15.08.2025 and Sales
Contract dated 18.08.2025 were allegedly used to lend legitimacy
to the transaction. After obtaining an advance of USD 7,625, the
petitioners and seller induced the complainant to incur customs
duty and CHA charges exceeding Rs.23,00,000/- and furnish a
bank undertaking of approximately Rs.1.42 crore, on assurances
of reimbursement. Despite the complainant facilitating clearance
of the goods, the promised amounts were not refunded, prima
facie indicating dishonest inducement. The sequence of events,
read as a whole, prima facie indicates fraudulent inducement and
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:57:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:37:00 PM)

(8 of 14)
[2026:RJ-JD:54124] [CRLMP-5022/2026]
cannot be dismissed as a mere failure to perform contractual
obligations.
(iv) Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the complainant had
been assured of the availability of the TRQ Certificate before
entering into the transaction. Further, the delay in providing
original shipping documents, despite the vessel’s arrival on
20.01.2026, resulted in demurrage, detention and other charges.
The communications dated 11.02.2026, 20.02.2026 and
03.03.2026 were relied upon to contend that the petitioners had
assured reimbursement of such charges but subsequently shifted
the liability upon the complainant. The subsequent delivery of
goods to New Tea Impex Pvt. Ltd. was also facilitated by the
complainant in the hope of recovering its advance and expenses,
on the assurances extended by the seller and the petitioners,
however, no payment was made.
(v) The seller’s demand dated 02.04.2026 for an additional USD
60,000 towards shipping line charges, despite earlier assurances
that such charges would be borne by the seller and the
petitioners, further reflects the pattern of withholding the
promised refund and raising additional monetary demands. The
fact that the advance and customs-related payments were
transferred to the accounts of Marina Commodities Inc. and R.K.
Logistics, respectively, does not absolve the petitioners of liability,
as persons participating in a criminal conspiracy may be liable
under Section 61(2) BNS irrespective of who physically received
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:57:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:37:00 PM)

(9 of 14)
[2026:RJ-JD:54124] [CRLMP-5022/2026]
the funds or cargo. Their alleged role in inducing payments and
assuring reimbursement requires investigation.
(vi) The allegations under Sections 318(4), 316(2) & 61(2) BNS
and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, require
examination in the light of the entire sequence of events and the
electronic communications exchanged between the parties. The
allegations of dishonest inducement, non-reimbursement of
amounts paid on assurances, withholding of funds and the alleged
coordinated conduct of the petitioners and the seller disclose
matters requiring investigation. The question of dishonest
intention cannot be determined solely from the absence of an
express admission of fraud in the initial correspondence, as such
intention may be assessed from the representations made and the
subsequent conduct of the parties. The petitioners’ assertion that
they acted only as brokers and had no dominion over the funds or
goods raises disputed factual issues that cannot be conclusively
adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.
4.1. Based on the above submissions, learned counsel for the
respondent no.2 submitted that the matter requires thorough
investigation and the FIR in question does not deserves to be
quashed.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the question
whether the transaction was a genuine commercial arrangement
or a device employed to commit fraud involves disputed questions
of fact that must be examined by the investigating agency on the
basis of the complete correspondence and other evidence. The
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:57:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:37:00 PM)

(10 of 14)
[2026:RJ-JD:54124] [CRLMP-5022/2026]
petitioners cannot, therefore, seek quashing of the FIR by relying
upon selected contractual documents or by inviting this Court to
determine their precise role at the stage of investigation.
5.1. He further submitted that the present case does not fall
within the categories warranting interference under Section 528
BNSS, as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bhajan Lal (supra). He contended that the FIR, read as a whole
and accepted at face value, discloses allegations requiring
investigation into offences alleged and the petitioners are
impermissibly seeking adjudication of disputed questions of fact at
a premature stage. The existence of a commercial relationship,
subsequent settlement negotiations or a claim for reimbursement
does not, by itself, negate the possibility of criminal conduct. He
therefore prayed that the criminal misc. petition be dismissed and
the investigation pursuant to the impugned FIR be permitted to
proceed in accordance with law.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. It is noted that vide order dated 22.07.2026, the parties
were directed to appear before the learned Mediator of the
Mediation Centre of this Court. However, since the mediation
proceedings failed, the interim protection granted vide the said
order was vacated on 13.10.2026, and the matter was directed to
be listed on 26.10.2026, when it was finally heard.
8. True it is that where the Court finds that criminal
proceedings have been initiated merely to pre-empt or exert
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:57:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:37:00 PM)

(11 of 14)
[2026:RJ-JD:54124] [CRLMP-5022/2026]
pressure in a civil dispute between the parties, interference in
exercise of inherent jurisdiction may be warranted. However, the
mere existence of a commercial transaction or availability of a civil
remedy does not, by itself, exclude the possibility of criminality.
The Court is required to examine whether the allegations in the
FIR, taken at their face value and considered in their entirety,
disclose the commission of cognizable offences.
8.1. It is also necessary to bear in mind the settled principles
governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court. In the
case of Bhajan Lal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while
illustrating the categories of cases in which the inherent
jurisdiction may be exercised, held that where the allegations
made in the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence, or where
the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected during
investigation do not disclose the commission of any offence,
interference by the High Court would be justified.
8.2. Further, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State
of Maharashtra; (2021) 19 SCC 401 , the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has cautioned that the power of quashing criminal
proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and that the High Court
should not embark upon an enquiry into the reliability or
genuineness of the allegations or undertake a mini-trial while
exercising such jurisdiction.
8.3. Thus, the exercise of inherent jurisdiction requires the Court
to examine whether the allegations and the material available on
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:57:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:37:00 PM)

(12 of 14)
[2026:RJ-JD:54124] [CRLMP-5022/2026]
record disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged,
without undertaking an elaborate appreciation of evidence or
recording findings on disputed questions of fact which are
ordinarily required to be determined during trial.
9. In the present case, the allegations in the FIR are not
confined merely to non-payment of an outstanding commercial
amount or failure to honour a contractual obligation. The
complainant has alleged that the petitioners actively induced it to
enter into the transaction by making representations regarding the
supply of goods, availability of the TRQ Certificate and
reimbursement of the amounts to be incurred towards customs
duty and CHA charges. It is further alleged that, acting upon such
representations, the complainant transferred the advance amount
and subsequently incurred substantial expenses for clearance of
the goods, but the promised amounts were not reimbursed. The
allegations also refer to the delay in furnishing the original
shipping documents, the assurances extended regarding payment
of charges and the subsequent demand of USD 60,000 towards
shipping line charges.
10. The petitioners have sought to explain their role by
contending that they acted merely as brokers and that neither the
advance amount nor the amount paid towards customs duty and
CHA charges was received by them. However, at this stage, the
said contention cannot be examined in isolation from the other
allegations levelled in the FIR. The question whether the
petitioners were merely intermediaries or had actively participated
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:57:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:37:00 PM)

(13 of 14)
[2026:RJ-JD:54124] [CRLMP-5022/2026]
in the alleged inducement and subsequent conduct is a matter
requiring examination of the correspondence and other material
during investigation. Similarly, the fact that the amounts were
transferred to the accounts of the seller and the logistics company
would not, by itself, be sufficient to rule out the alleged
participation of the petitioners.
11. The rival submissions also disclose that the parties rely upon
different communications to support their respective versions
regarding the TRQ Certificate, delay in dispatch of documents,
reimbursement of expenses and the subsequent arrangement for
delivery of the goods to the new buyer. An assessment of these
communications, their context and the role attributable to each of
the parties would necessarily involve examination of disputed
questions of fact. Such an exercise cannot appropriately be
undertaken in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS, particularly
when the investigation is required to ascertain the circumstances
in which the transaction was entered into and the subsequent
assurances and payments were made.
12. It is settled position of law that the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. At
the stage of considering a petition for quashing FIR, the Court is
not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the
evidence or determine the truthfulness of the allegations. In the
present case, upon a consideration of the allegations in the FIR as
a whole, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the dispute is
purely civil in nature or the allegations, even if taken at their face
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:57:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:37:00 PM)

(14 of 14)
[2026:RJ-JD:54124] [CRLMP-5022/2026]
value, do not disclose any cognizable offence. The defences raised
by the petitioners would be matters for consideration during
investigation and, if required, at the appropriate stage of the
proceedings.
13. In view of the discussion made above, this Court does not
find any ground warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under
Section 528 BNSS for quashing the impugned FIR. Consequently,
the present criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed .
14. Needless to observe that the observations made herein shall
not prejudice the investigation or the rights and contentions of
either party.
15. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
RAKESH MATHUR
(Uploaded on 04/11/2026 at 05:57:10 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/11/2026 at 06:37:00 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)