Uttarakhand High Court
6 June vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr on 16 June, 2025
2025:UHC:5286
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1908 of 2018
16 June, 2025
Ajay Rana --Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr. --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Arvind Vashishtha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Mr. Vivek Pathak.
Mr. G. C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The present application under Section 482
Cr.P.C has been filed by the Applicant, Ajay Rana,
seeking quashing of the order dated 30.11.2017 passed
by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District
Dehradun in Case No. 436 of 2016 (arising out of FIR No.
222 of 2012), P.S. Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar and
the revisional order dated 06.09.2018 passed by the 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun
1
Criminal Misc. Application No.1908 of 2018, Ajay Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5286
in Criminal Revision No.318 of 2017.
2. The FIR, lodged by Respondent No.2 on
15.08.2012, alleges that a fraudulent transaction was
entered into between M/s Barnawa Agro Industries Ltd.
and the complainant, wherein an MoU was executed for
the transfer of 135 acres of land and shares in exchange
for over `7.6 crores. Arguably, forged company records
were used to induce the complainant and he was later
removed as Director without notice.
3. The Applicant, a Chartered Accountant by
profession, allegedly uploaded and certified Form 32 and
other documents used in the transaction. A charge sheet
was filed against him under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,
506, and 120-B IPC. Cognizance was taken and charges
were framed. A prior 482 petition challenging the charge
sheet was dismissed in 2015, and a subsequent revision
against framing of charges was dismissed on 06.09.2018.
4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits
that the dispute between the parties is, in essence, civil
in nature, arising from a commercial transaction relating
to the sale of land and the transfer of company shares. It
2
Criminal Misc. Application No.1908 of 2018, Ajay Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5286
is argued that the criminal proceedings are a pressure
tactic to compel performance of a contractual
understanding.
5. It is contended that the Applicant is a
Chartered Accountant who merely discharged his
professional obligations by uploading company filings,
including Form 32 and Form 20B, on the ROC portal.
The company's Director, Karanveer Singh, digitally
signed and authorized these filings. The Applicant neither
fabricated documents nor made any misrepresentations
himself.
6. Learned Counsel argues that the Applicant had
no financial stake in the transaction. He was not a
signatory or witness to the MoU dated 23.08.2011, and
all payments were made to Karanveer Singh or the
Company, not to the Applicant. The Applicant's name
does not appear on any transactional instrument.
7. It is further submitted that no incriminating
material has been collected during the investigation to
demonstrate the Applicant's participation in the alleged
conspiracy. The only basis for implicating him is that he
3
Criminal Misc. Application No.1908 of 2018, Ajay Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5286
filed certain statutory forms in his professional capacity,
which, under the Companies Act, is a routine function.
8. It is contended on behalf of the Applicant that
the ROC documents in question are public records,
verifiable through the MCA portal, and there is no
allegation that these filings were not duly recorded or
that the Applicant fabricated their content. Thus, the
core ingredients of the alleged offences are not attributed
to him.
9. Learned Counsel highlights that an earlier
Section 482 petition challenging the charge sheet and
summoning order was dismissed in 2015. The present
petition is confined to the framing of charges, and the
threshold for interference is whether the materials
disclose a prima facie offence. The Applicant submits that
in his case, they do not.
10. Finally, it is urged that continuation of
proceedings would amount to misuse of criminal law for
what is, at best, a contractual dispute between private
parties, and that the Applicant's continued prosecution
would result in unwarranted hardship and abuse of
4
Criminal Misc. Application No.1908 of 2018, Ajay Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5286
process
11. Learned State Counsel opposes the
application, submitting that the investigation has
revealed a well-orchestrated conspiracy involving
multiple accused, including the present Applicant, to
induce the complainant into parting with a large sum of
money based on forged company filings and
misrepresented shareholding.
12. It is submitted that the Form 32 and other
ROC filings, uploaded and certified by the Applicant,
were pivotal to the scheme, as they were used to falsely
project the complainant and his son as inducted
Directors of the Company, creating a façade of ownership
and control which was later undone without notice.
13. Learned State Counsel relies on the statements
of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC, including Mohan
Lal Agarwal, Sher Singh, Narendra Verma, and others, to
assert that the Applicant was not a passive professional
but knowingly aided the main accused by legitimizing
manipulated filings.
14. It is argued that the material collected during
5
Criminal Misc. Application No.1908 of 2018, Ajay Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5286
the investigation is sufficient to disclose a prima facie
case against the Applicant under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 and 120-B IPC, and the learned Magistrate rightly
took cognizance and framed charges.
15. Learned State Counsel also submits that both
the trial and revisional courts have already dealt with the
Applicant's contentions and rejected his pleas, finding no
illegality in framing charges. This Court had also refused
to quash the charge sheet on similar grounds.
16. It is emphasized that the mere availability of a
civil remedy does not preclude criminal prosecution,
particularly where fraudulent intent and use of forged
documents are alleged. The proceedings cannot be stifled
merely because the Applicant claims to be a professional.
17. Lastly, the State points out that the trial is
advanced, with seventeen prosecution witnesses already
examined. Entertaining the petition at this stage would
delay and disrupt the judicial process.
18. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
19. At the outset, it is settled law that the power
6
Criminal Misc. Application No.1908 of 2018, Ajay Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5286
under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and
with great caution. The jurisdiction is not to be invoked
to stifle legitimate prosecution unless the complaint or
charge sheet does not disclose the commission of any
offence, or the prosecution is manifestly attended with
mala fide or is otherwise an abuse of the process of law.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Amit Kapoor v.
Ramesh Chander', (2012) 9 SCC 460, has laid down that
at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only
required to see whether a prima facie case is made out
against the accused and not to evaluate the sufficiency of
evidence. A detailed analysis of the probative value of
documents or defence contentions is impermissible at
this stage. The test is whether the uncontroverted
allegations, as supported by material on record, disclose
the commission of an offence.
21. In the present case, it is not disputed that the
Applicant is a Chartered Accountant and had
professional dealings with M/s Barnawa Agro Industries
Ltd. The allegation is not merely one of passive
professional association, but that the Applicant actively
facilitated the uploading and certification of statutory
7
Criminal Misc. Application No.1908 of 2018, Ajay Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5286
ROC filings (Form 32, Form 20B, etc.) that
misrepresented the shareholding and directorship of the
complainant and his son. These filings were allegedly
instrumental in giving effect to a scheme that induced
the complainant to part with substantial sums of money,
exceeding `7 crores.
22. The prosecution has relied on statements
recorded under Section 161 CrPC, including those of
Sher Singh, Narendra Verma, and the complainant,
which attribute a role to the Applicant in certifying
documents later found to be inconsistent with the
complainant's version. These witnesses have alleged that
the digital filings were manipulated to create a false
appearance of transfer of control, which was
subsequently reversed without notice. Whether the
Applicant's actions were knowingly fraudulent or merely
negligent are questions that can only be examined during
trial.
23. The Applicant's contention that he merely
acted under instructions and filed documents digitally
signed by a company Director is a matter of defence and
would require an appreciation of the full evidentiary
8
Criminal Misc. Application No.1908 of 2018, Ajay Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5286
record. Similarly, the argument that the filings were
public documents and that their content was not
fabricated by the Applicant himself is not sufficient, at
this stage, to override the consistent statements of
witnesses alleging conspiracy and misrepresentation.
24. The assertion that the Applicant was neither a
signatory nor a beneficiary under the MoU, and that the
matter is essentially civil, also does not persuade this
Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482. The
Supreme Court in 'Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi',
(1999) 3 SCC 259, has clarified that mere availability of a
civil remedy does not preclude criminal prosecution
where the allegations disclose dishonest or fraudulent
inducement.
25. Furthermore, this Court finds that the
Applicant has already availed multiple remedies--earlier
Section 482 proceedings were dismissed in 2015; the
discharge application was rejected by the Magistrate on
07.03.2017; and the revisional challenge to the framing
of charges was also dismissed on 06.09.2018. Though
formally confined to the framing of charges, the present
petition seeks to reopen issues already judicially
9
Criminal Misc. Application No.1908 of 2018, Ajay Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5286
considered.
26. The trial is underway, with seventeen
prosecution witnesses examined. At this stage,
interference by this Court would not only amount to pre-
trial evaluation of evidence but may also cause undue
disruption to the proceedings.
27. This Court is mindful of the caution reiterated
in 'State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi', (2005) 1 SCC
568, that defence materials cannot be considered at the
stage of framing of charge, and that the High Court, while
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, should
refrain from acting as a trial court.
ORDER
In view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that neither the order passed by
the learned Magistrate in framing charges, nor the
revisional order affirming the same suffers from any
illegality, perversity, or manifest injustice. The material
available on record does not warrant the exercise of the
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure at this stage.
10
Criminal Misc. Application No.1908 of 2018, Ajay Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5286
The present application under Section 482
CrPC lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
16.06.2025
Akash
11
Criminal Misc. Application No.1908 of 2018, Ajay Rana vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.
Ashish Naithani J.