Uttarakhand High Court
6 June vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr on 16 June, 2025
2025:UHC:5190
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1587 of 2021
16 June, 2025
Vishesh Kumar --Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr. --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. G. C. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
There is no representation on behalf of the Respondent no.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Application has
been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the impugned
cognizance order dated 25.06.2020 and the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 452 of 2020 titled
"State vs. Km. Deepa Rautela and another" under
Sections 408, 420 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code,
registered at Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital,
pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ramnagar, District Nainital. The Applicant,
Vishesh Kumar, aged about 34 years, son of Amar Singh,
1
Criminal Misc. Application No.1587 of 2021-----Vishesh Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5190
resident of Khadakpur Devipura Kashipur, District
Udham Singh Nagar, has approached this Court claiming
his innocence and seeking relief from what he terms as
false implication in the criminal case.
2. The genesis of this case lies in FIR No. 0045 of
2019 registered on 07.02.2019 under Sections 408, 420
& 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station
Ramnagar, District Nainital, based on a complaint filed
by Respondent No.2 Pankaj Bansal. According to the
State's case, the Applicant Vishesh Kumar was working
as an agent for INDUSIND Bank, while one Km. Deepa
Rautela was employed with the complainant's firm. The
allegation against both accused persons is that they
conspired together and misappropriated a substantial
amount ranging from `55 lakhs to `60 lakhs belonging
to the complainant's firm.
3. The specific modus operandi, as alleged by the
State, involves the Applicant being positioned at Balak Ji
Motors/Hero Moto Corp at Bhawaniganj, where the
company deputed him to provide vehicle financing
services. As per the State, the Applicant, in collusion with
co-accused Deepa Rautela, cheated persons who
2
Criminal Misc. Application No.1587 of 2021-----Vishesh Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5190
purchased vehicles by cash. They allegedly grabbed the
cash amount while the vehicles were financed by
INDUSIND Bank without the consent of the actual
owners. The investigating officer discovered that the
Applicant had prepared fake finance papers without the
consent of the vehicle owners, thereby defrauding both
the customers and the financial institution.
4. The FIR was registered after the complainant
approached the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, and subsequently, the police
conducted an investigation. During the investigation,
statements of multiple witnesses were recorded,
including Pankaj Bansal (the complainant), Kamal Joshi,
Yashpal, Sunil Kumar, Madan Singh, Santosh Singh,
Shakuntala Devi, Govind Singh, Ajay, Shri Sharma,
Vinod Saxena, Smt. Geeta Devi and Vimal Panday, all of
whom allegedly supported the State's case.
5. Based on the investigation, a charge sheet was
filed on 19.06.2020, and cognizance was taken by the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, on
25.06.2020. Subsequently, summons were issued
against the Applicant, and when he failed to appear, a
3
Criminal Misc. Application No.1587 of 2021-----Vishesh Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5190
Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued against him on
09.11.2021.
6. Heard learned counsel Mr. Abhishek Verma on
behalf of the Applicant and Mr. Girish Chandra Joshi,
learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. Perused the
records.
7. The learned counsel for the Applicant contends
that the Applicant has been falsely implicated and was
merely an agent of INDUSIND Bank providing vehicle
financing services with no involvement in the
complainant's firm transactions. The counsel challenges
the applicability of Section 408 IPC, arguing that the
essential employer-employee relationship required for
criminal breach of trust is absent since the complainant's
firm did not employ the Applicant.
8. The counsel raises procedural irregularities,
contending that the complainant failed to comply with
Section 154 CrPC while filing the Section 156(3)
application, as evident from the police report dated
18.10.2018. It is argued that the Magistrate erred in
passing the order without proper compliance, rendering
the proceedings liable to be quashed.
4
Criminal Misc. Application No.1587 of 2021-----Vishesh Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5190
9. The State counsel vehemently opposes the
application, contending that the Applicant committed
serious fraud against society, defrauding approximately
Rs. 60 lakhs from the public. The investigating officer's
counter affidavit details how the Applicant, as an
INDUSIND Bank agent stationed at Balak Ji Motors,
exploited his position to cheat vehicle purchasers by
collecting cash payments while simultaneously arranging
unauthorized financing.
10. The learned counsel for the State emphasizes
that the Applicant prepared fake finance papers without
vehicle owners' consent and that statements of numerous
witnesses, including the complainant and affected
parties, support the State's case establishing prima facie
evidence. The counsel argues there was no procedural
illegality in the summoning order and that the NBW was
justified due to the Applicant's deliberate avoidance of
court proceedings.
11. The complainant Pankaj Bansal reiterates
through his counter affidavit that the Applicant, in
collusion with co-accused Deepa Rautela,
misappropriated Rs. 55-60 lakhs, emphasizing that a
5
Criminal Misc. Application No.1587 of 2021-----Vishesh Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5190
prima facie case exists warranting no interference by this
Court, and the application lacks merit deserving
dismissal.
12. After carefully examining the pleadings of both
parties, the documents on record, and the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel, this Court observes
that the present application raises important questions
regarding the scope of interference under Section 482 of
the Criminal Procedure Code and the standards for
quashing criminal proceedings at the pre-trial stage.
13. The fundamental principle governing the
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 is that the
High Court's inherent powers should be exercised
sparingly and with great caution. The power to quash
criminal proceedings should be used only where the
Court is convinced that allowing the proceedings to
continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law
or would otherwise be contrary to the interests of justice.
The Court must be satisfied that the allegations, even if
proved, would not constitute the offense charged, or that
the proceedings are malicious and vexatious.
14. In the present case, examining the allegations
6
Criminal Misc. Application No.1587 of 2021-----Vishesh Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5190
made in the FIR and the material collected during
investigation, it appears that there are specific allegations
against the Applicant regarding his role in the alleged
fraud. The State's case, as presented, suggests that the
Applicant, being an agent of INDUSIND Bank, exploited
his position and, in conspiracy with co-accused Deepa
Rautela, defrauded customers by collecting cash
payments for vehicles while simultaneously arranging
financing for the same vehicles without the knowledge or
consent of the customers.
15. The Applicant's contention that he cannot be
charged under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code due
to the absence of an employer-employee relationship with
the complainant's firm requires careful consideration.
However, Section 408 encompasses not only employees
but also any person who is entrusted with property or
with dominion over property. The question of whether the
Applicant's position as a bank agent and his alleged
actions fall within the purview of this section is a matter
that requires detailed examination of evidence during
trial.
16. Regarding the procedural irregularities alleged
7
Criminal Misc. Application No.1587 of 2021-----Vishesh Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5190
by the Applicant concerning the registration of the FIR,
this Court notes that while procedural compliance is
important, minor procedural lapses do not automatically
vitiate the entire proceedings if the substantive
allegations are serious and warrant investigation. The
mere fact that there might have been some procedural
irregularity in the initial stages does not necessarily
render the entire proceedings void, particularly when
substantial evidence has been collected during the
investigation.
17. The Court also considers the fact that multiple
witnesses have been examined during the investigation,
and their statements allegedly support the State's case.
The investigating officer has filed a detailed counter
affidavit explaining the modus operandi of the alleged
fraud and the specific role attributed to the Applicant.
While the Applicant denies these allegations, the
resolution of these factual disputes is best left to the trial
court after a full examination of evidence.
18. The Applicant's claim of being falsely
implicated and his assertion of innocence, while noted,
cannot be conclusively determined at this stage without a
8
Criminal Misc. Application No.1587 of 2021-----Vishesh Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5190
full trial. The fact that the Applicant has no previous
criminal history, as mentioned in the DCRB report, is
certainly a factor in his favor, but it does not preclude the
possibility of his involvement in the present case.
19. Furthermore, this Court observes that the
allegations involve a substantial amount of public money
and affect multiple victims, as evidenced by the
statements of various witnesses. Such cases, involving
financial fraud and breach of public trust, require careful
adjudication through the normal course of criminal trial
rather than being disposed of summarily at the pre-trial
stage.
20. The Court is not convinced that allowing the
criminal proceedings to continue would amount to an
abuse of the process of law. The allegations are serious;
involve substantial financial fraud affecting multiple
victims, and warrant proper adjudication through trial.
The resolution of factual disputes and the determination
of the Applicant's guilt or innocence should be left to the
trial court after a complete examination of evidence from
both sides.
21. The procedural irregularities alleged by the
9
Criminal Misc. Application No.1587 of 2021-----Vishesh Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5190
Applicant, even if established, do not appear to be of
such magnitude as to vitiate the entire proceedings,
particularly when substantial evidence has been collected
and multiple witnesses have been examined during the
investigation.
ORDER
Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 1587 of 2021 is hereby dismissed. The
interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
16.06.2025
Akash
10
Criminal Misc. Application No.1587 of 2021—–Vishesh Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand & Another
Ashish Naithani J.