Uttarakhand High Court
Prashant Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Anr on 7 July, 2025
2025:UHC:5940
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No.511 of 2021
Prashant Sharma ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Anr. .....Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA, for the State.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the Applicant, Prashant
Sharma, seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 29.02.2020 and the
cognizance/summoning order dated 18.12.2020 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in
Criminal Case No. 314 of 2020, arising out of FIR No. 45 of 2019,
registered at Police Station Rishikesh, District Dehradun, under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The FIR was lodged on 21.01.2019 by one Paras Kumar, alleging
that the main accused, Deepak Gauwari, posed as a government agent
capable of securing contractual jobs at AIIMS Rishikesh and induced the
Informant to part with a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in exchange for a forged
appointment letter. The fraud came to light when the Informant
approached AIIMS, only to discover that no such appointment existed.
Several other individuals are alleged to have been similarly defrauded.
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 511 of 2021, Prashant Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5940
3. The name of the present Applicant does not appear in the FIR. It
is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that he has been falsely implicated
solely because he is the landlord of co-accused Deepak Gauwari, to whom
he had rented a room. It is contended that the rental agreement was
executed only after police verification, and the Applicant had no
knowledge of the tenant's criminal activities.
4. It is further submitted that the Applicant was neither involved in
the inducement nor present at the time of the transaction, nor was any
forged document found in his possession during the investigation. The
only material against the Applicant is an alleged disclosure by the co-
accused, which is inadmissible as substantive evidence.
5. Learned Counsel for the Applicant further contended that the
offences under Sections 467 and 468 IPC, being serious in nature, require
specific allegations of forgery and intention, which are completely absent
against the Applicant. The charge sheet does not disclose any material to
show that the Applicant was a party to the conspiracy or fabrication of
documents.
6. It was argued that the continuation of criminal proceedings
against the Applicant would amount to an abuse of the process of law and
that no prima facie case is made out.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State submitted that there is
sufficient prima facie material on record to support the filing of the charge
sheet against the Applicant. It was contended that the co-accused, Deepak
Gauwari, in his disclosure statement, named the Applicant as someone
aware of and complicit in the alleged fraudulent scheme. The said
statement disclosed that the Applicant had facilitated the activities of the
co-accused by permitting the use of his premises and by storing forged
documents therein.
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 511 of 2021, Prashant Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5940
8. Learned State Counsel further submitted that the investigating
agency recovered several forged appointment letters and blank stationery
purportedly bearing AIIMS Rishikesh insignia from the premises under
the control of the Applicant. Although no recovery was made directly
from the Applicant's physical possession, the premises in question were
under his ownership and control, and the material recovered was allegedly
used in the commission of the offence.
9. It was further pointed out that statements of some of the
complainants and victims, recorded under Section 161 CrPC, reflect that
they had been invited to the said premises by the co-accused, and on
occasion, in the presence or with the knowledge of the Applicant. The
learned State Counsel argued that such circumstances warrant further
trial, especially since the authenticity of these claims can only be tested
during the evidentiary stage. In light of the recovery of forged material
from the premises and the co-accused's disclosures, the learned Counsel
argued that the Applicant cannot be exonerated at this stage.
10. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.
11. The Applicant has approached this Court invoking its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking
quashing of the charge sheet dated 29.02.2020 and the cognizance order
dated 18.12.2020 passed by the learned Magistrate. The primary ground
urged is that the Applicant was merely a landlord and had no role
whatsoever in the alleged acts of forgery, cheating, or conspiracy. It is
contended that there is no substantive material on record to link the
Applicant with the fraudulent acts of the main accused.
12. From a perusal of the charge sheet and accompanying documents,
it is evident that the Applicant was not named in the FIR. However,
during the course of the investigation, the co-accused, in his confessional
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 511 of 2021, Prashant Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5940
statement, disclosed the name of the Applicant and alleged that forged
documents were prepared and stored at premises belonging to him.
Furthermore, certain forged appointment letters and AIIMS Rishikesh
stationery were reportedly recovered from the premises in question.
13. The contention of the Applicant that the confession of a co-
accused cannot form the sole basis for prosecution is well supported in
law. This principle, though evolved in the context of conviction, has
consistently guided Courts to insist upon independent corroboration when
such confessions are relied upon, even at the stage of prosecution.
14. However, in the present case, there is more than a mere
confession. The investigating agency has recorded statements under
Section 161 CrPC of multiple witnesses, including victims, who have
stated that they were either taken to the Applicant's premises or received
forged letters from there. In addition, material documents were allegedly
recovered from the property in question, which, though not physically in
the Applicant's hands, were retrieved from premises over which he had
ownership and constructive control.
15. Whether the Applicant had actual knowledge or was actively
involved in the forgery or cheating is a matter that cannot be conclusively
determined at this stage. The degree of his participation, intention, and
knowledge are all issues that must be tested through evidence at trial. At
this stage, the Court is not expected to weigh the sufficiency of evidence
but only to ascertain whether a prima facie case is disclosed.
16. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that when the factual foundation for
the alleged offence is disclosed in the complaint, the Court must exercise
great caution in invoking its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. It was
held that proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed at the threshold
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 511 of 2021, Prashant Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5940
unless the uncontroverted allegations, even if accepted in their entirety,
fail to disclose the commission of any offence
17. The settled principle is that if one or more ingredients of the
offence are prima facie made out, the matter must proceed to trial. This is
further reinforced in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful
Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122, where it was held:
"The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC
should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and in the
rarest of rare cases."
18. In the present case, the material collected during investigation,
including the statements of witnesses and the recovery from the
Applicant's premises, prima facie raise a triable issue that ought not to be
scuttled at the threshold. The role of the Applicant, even if marginal,
cannot be ruled out at this stage. It is for the trial Court to appreciate
whether the allegations ultimately stand proved. Interference at this stage
would be premature and may thwart a full and fair adjudication.
ORDER
In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no cogent
ground to interfere in the criminal proceedings at this stage. The
application under Section 482 CrPC lacks merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
Dated:07.07.2025
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 511 of 2021, Prashant Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
[ad_1]
Source link