Uttarakhand High Court
Vikas Narang And vs State Of Uttarakhand on 9 January, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 789 of 2024
Vikas Narang and
Another ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand
and Others
...Respondents
Presence:
1. Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.
Vikramaditya Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. (Oral)
IA No. 6 of 2024 (Criminal Miscellaneous Application) has
been moved for recalling the order dated 21.08.2024 passed by
this Court and also for taking appropriate action against the
petitioner for non-compliance of the undertaking given by the
petitioner.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioners for the following reliefs:-
“(i) Issue writ, order, or direction, like certiorari to quash the
impugned notice u/s 102 Cr.P.C. dated 02.07.2024 isued by
Investigation Officer/respondent no. 2 in FIR No. 310/2024
(dated 19.06.2024) under section 420, 406, 506 and 468 IPC,
P.S. SIDCUL, Haridwar and thereby to de-freeze the
concerning accounts mentioned therein. (Annexure No. 4).”
3. On 21.08.2024, after hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned State Counsel as well as learned
counsel for respondent no. 3, this Court passed the order, the
relevant extract of which is being reproduced herein as under:-
“4. By the instant writ petition the petitioners are challenging
the notice dated 02.07.2024 issued by the Investigating
Officer/respondent no. 2 under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. in
1
relation to the FIR No. 310/2024 dated 19.06.2024, wherein, the
petitioners have been implicated for the offence punishable
under Sections 420, 406, 506 and 468 of IPC, P.S. SIDCUL,
Haridwar.
5. In addition to this, the petitioners are also praying for de-
freeze the accounts of the firm namely M/S Saraswati Printers
and Graphics Designing.
6. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel Mr. A.S. Rawat
that, in fact, the dispute is nothing but relating to the settlement
of the accounts in between the petitioners’ firm and respondent
no. 3. The petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 are the
husband and wife and are partners in the firm namely M/S
Saraswati Printers, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi, engaged
in the business Offset Printing and Graphics Designing and
other accused person namely Randhir Jha and Anil Kumar Bali
are the employees of the firm and employed as an Accountant
and the Chief Executive Officer, respectively.
7. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that earlier the First Information Report was challenged before
this court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 731 of 2024, wherein,
this court directed to the Investigating Officer to carry on with
the investigation after following the procedure as prescribed
under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.
8. It is submitted that the petitioner no. 1 obtained an interest-
bearing loan of Rs. 91,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety One Lakh Only)
from respondent no. 3 and Rs. 3,15,00,000/- (Rupees Three
Crore Fifteen Lakh only) from his Company namely M/s Anwita
Bhati Contractor Private Limited, Raipur, Chhatisgarh in the
Financial Year 2022-23.
9. It is submitted that till 10.05.2024 the petitioner’s firm has
already repaid a sum of Rs. 3,17,43,988/- (Rupees Three Crore
Seventeen Lakh Forty-three thousand nine hundred eighty eight
only) including interest to the respondent no. 2 by their firm
through RTGS and bank account transfers. In reference to this,
Annual ledger accounts maintained by the petitioners firm and
the related bank statements of the firm are annexed as
Annexure-3 to the writ petition.
10. It is submitted that pursuant to the notice dated 02.07.2024
issued under Section 102 Cr.P.C. the Bank accounts of the firm
bearing Account Nos. 6045101000010117, 604530100030022
and 604520110000637 with Bank of India, Saket, New Delhi,
has been frozen without any prior intimation to the firm or to
the petitioners.
11. It is submitted that the said notice issued under Section 102
of Cr.P.C. is illegal and arbitrary and prior to the seizure of the
accounts of the petitioner and his firm neither intimation was
given nor any reasons has been assigned about the seizure of
the bank account.
12. It is also submitted that seizure of the bank account has
created financial blockage to the firm’s business, which causes
undue hardships to the petitioners and they are unable to carry
out day-to-day affairs and the petitioners are not even able to
disburse the salary of its employees or to make the payment of
the dues of the government either on account of various bill or
tax liabilities and the entire business of the firm has been
hampered due to the said seizure.
13. Today, an affidavit has been filed by the petitioners, which
is taken on record. In paragraph-4 it is submitted that the
2
petitioners are giving an undertaking that they will deposit an
amount of Rs. 3,00,000,00/- (Rupees three crores) to this court
and the same shall be deposited subject to the outcome of the
petition, for which petitioners prayed two weeks’ time to deposit
the said amount of Rupees three crores only with the Registry.
14. In paragraph-4 it is also contended that this court directed
the petitioners to furnish an undertaking to that effect; however,
the order dated 21.08.2024 does not the same; however, now
since the petitioners are giving an undertaking to deposit a sum
of Rupees three crores before this court; therefore, in the larger
interest, particularly, when the salary of the staff could not be
paid since last two months, this court is of the view that the
accounts of the petitioners’ firm be de-freezed with immediate
effect, subject to this condition that the petitioners shall deposit
a sum of Rupees three crores by way of a bank draft to the
Registry within a period of two weeks from today.
15. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that earlier the First Information Report was challenged before
this court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 731 of 2024, wherein,
this court directed to the Investigating Officer to carry on with
the investigation after following the procedure as prescribed
under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.
16. Accordingly, the Branch Manager of the concerned Bank is
directed to de-freeze the bank accounts of petitioners’ firm,
which are frozen pursuant to the notice dated 02.07.2024.
17. Let the counter affidavit may be filed by the respondent
within a period of four weeks from today.
18. During the course of argument learned Brief Holder Mr.
Akshay Latwal submits that the petitioners are not cooperating
with the investigation; if it is so, then the petitioners are also
directed to cooperate with the investigation and they will not
leave the country without permission of the court.”
4. As it appears from aforesaid order, the petitioners
gave an undertaking to deposit a sum of Rs. 3 crores before
this Court. Consequently, in view of the undertaking of the
petitioners and further keeping in view the larger interest of
the staff, who were not getting their salary since the
account was freezed, by order dated 21.08.2024, this Court
defreeze the accounts subject to this condition that
petitioners will deposit a sum of Rs. 3 crores by way of
bank draft to the Registry within a period of two weeks.
5. Thereafter, a Time Extension Application No. 02 of
2024 was moved by the petitioner and in the interest of
justice, some more time was given by the Coordinate
3
Bench on 24.09.2024, by which, further six weeks’ time
was granted to the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 3
crores as per order dated 21.08.2024. In the meantime, the
petitioners also filed another Criminal Writ Petition No.
731 of 2024 for quashing of FIR dated 19.06.2024, bearing
FIR No. 0310 of 2024 at P.S. SIDCUL, Haridwar, wherein,
the petitioners were implicated for the offences punishable
under Section 406, 420, 468 and 506 IPC.
6. After taking into consideration submission of the
learned counsel for the parties including the learned
counsel for the State since all the offences were punishable
only up to seven years, consequently, this Court disposed
of the petition with a direction that the investigation may go
on, however, the Investigating Officer shall follow the
procedure as prescribed under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.
7. Against the order dated 10.07.2024 passed in WPCRL
No. 731 of 2024, the petitioner went in appeal before the
Hon’ble Apex Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal
(Criminal) No. 13149 of 2024. On 01.10.2024, the Hon’ble
Apex Court issued the notices to the respondents and for an
interim measure, it is directed that no coercive steps shall
be taken against the petitioners, provided the petitioners
shall abide by the undertaking given to this Court and
deposit the amount before the High Court within the time
allowed and upon deposit of the said amount, it shall be
invested in an interest bearing account in a Nationalized
Bank.
4
8. Subsequently, the said Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No. 13149 of 2024 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court on 20.11.2024 on the ground that petitioners have not
complied with the earlier order dated 01.10.2024 as well as
the conduct of the petitioners.
9. As reflected from the order passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court dated 20.11.2024, the petition was
dismissed since the petitioners have not complied with the
undertaking as given before this Court as well as non-
compliance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court on 01.10.2024, wherein, interim protection were
given to the petitioners, subject to this condition that they
will deposit the amount as per the undertaking given before
the High Court.
10. Now, surprisingly after dismissal of the SLP by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20.11.2024, another application
was moved by the petitioners i.e IA No. 5 of 2024,
wherein, they seek six months additional time to deposit the
amount of Rs. 3 crore pursuant to the order passed by this
Court. The said application was dismissed by the
Coordinate Bench on 02.12.2024. While dismissing this
application, the Coordinate Bench in paragraph 8 observed
as under:-
“8. From the aforesaid conduct of petitioners, it can safely be
inferred that their intention is just to adopt the delay 2 tactics by
misleading the Court. The same is quite apparent from the fact
that since the date of first order dated 21.08.2024, time of
almost four months has elapsed but they have not bothered to
honour the undertaking given before this Court, and that too,
which was in the form of an affidavit filed before the Court.”
5
11. Now, IA No. 6 of 2024 has been moved by the
petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have given a
false undertaking before this Court and despite ample
opportunities, the petitioners have not deposited the
amount.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant also
submits that not only this, even the petitioners have not
complied with the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court whereby interim protection was given by the
petitioners subject to the condition that they will abide by
the undertaking given before this Court.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents submits by
misleading to this Court to get an order to defreeze the
account and withdraw the entire amount and he placed
reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court on 03.11.2022, in the case of “In Re: Perry
Kansagra….Contemnor, 2021 SCC Online SC 3325, in
SUO-MOTU Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2021, and
submits that it is settled law that a person who makes a
false statement before the Court and makes an attempt to
deceive the Court is guilty of contempt of Court.
14. Admittedly on perusal of the order passed by this
Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it reveals
that the petitioners obtained the order of de-freezing the
account by giving false undertaking.
15. In such an eventuality, to examine the issue whether
petitioners have committed the fraud with this Court or not
and whether it amounts to contempt or not, the notices are
6
being issued to the petitioners to show-cause within four
weeks, why they may not be prosecuted by giving false
undertaking before this Court and be not punished under
the provisions under the Contempt of Courts Act.
16. Whether petitioners have played fraud or not with this
Court, this question can be examined by the Regular
Bench, but, this Court, prima facie, is of the view that the
petitioners have given the false undertaking before this
Court and obtained the order of defreezing the account.
17. In such an eventuality, since by the present IA No. 6
of 2024 (Criminal Miscellaneous Application), the
respondent-complainant is seeking recalling the order dated
21.08.2024 and since, undisputedly, the petitioners give a
false undertaking before this Court, therefore, the account
which was defreezed by the order dated 21.08.2024 is
directed to be freezed with immediate effect.
18. Accordingly, IA No. 06 of 2024 is disposed of finally.
19. List before regular Bench.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
09.01.2025
Ujjwal
7