Patna High Court
Kitti Nawani @ Kishore Nawani vs The State Of Bihar on 17 June, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27343 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2042 Year-2014 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Gaya
======================================================
Kitti Nawani @ Kishore Nawani S/o Late Mohan Lal Nawani R/o 12/5, SOI-
33 Sukhumunit Road, Klongton Nua, Vattan, Bangkok Thailand Dang Udom,
Klongton Nua, District-Waltana, Bangkok-10110 Thailand
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Buddhist Thai Bharat Society through its General Secretary, Ratneshwar
Chakma S/o Sri Sanri Kumar Chakma Registered office at village- Mastipur,
South of Main Temple, P.S. - Bodh Gaya, Resident at Buddhist Thai Bharat
Society, village - Mastipur, South of Main Temple, P.S. - Bodh Gaya, Distt. -
Gaya, Pin 824231
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Rishi Raj Raman, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP
for the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 17-06-2025
The present quashing application/petition preferred
u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'CrPC') on
behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the entire proceedings
arising out of Complaint Case No. 2042 of 2014, wherein
cognizance has been taken against the petitioner/accused for
the offences punishable under Sections 406, 504, 420 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
2/24
120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') by the court of
learned A.C.J.M., Gaya.
2. Allegation as averred in complaint case, suggest
that "Buddhist Thai Bharat Society" (in short 'Society") is
a charitable welfare society duly registered under the
Societies Registration Act, where petitioner was inducted
initially as member of society, who in due course of time,
elected its General Secretary. It is alleged that petitioner in
capacity of General Secretary of the Society committed
numerous illegal acts with malafide intention, which caused
wrongful loss to the Society and wrongful gain to himself. It is
alleged that petitioner received donations and contributions
made for the society in personal capacity and later on
transferred the said money to the account of society by
showing it as a loan given by him to the society and,
therefore, he committed criminal breach of trust and also
misappropriation of the fund of the society. As per the audit
report for the year 2008-09, a sum of Rs. 25,28,646/- was
shown as loan to the society, whereas in actual, the aforesaid
amount was donated to society by different donors. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
3/24
further alleged that petitioner inducted his relatives in the
governing body of society with malicious intention of securing
majority of his own men in the governing body and thus,
changed the democratic structure of the society for his
wrongful personal gain. It is submitted that petitioner under
conspiracy dishonestly removed several original documents,
registers, sanctioned buildings plan, bank passbooks, bank
statement, cheque books etc. of the society and despite of
repeated requests did not return the same to O.P. No.2 and
dishonestly committed theft. The petitioner and accused no.2
did not convene the general body meeting and did not conduct
the election. It is also alleged that petitioner committed
cheating and fraud with respect to his personal details in his
passport with mala fide intention of obtaining wrongful gain
for himself from the Government of India. Allegedly, the
petitioner is a citizen of Thailand and possesses two passports
in which his date of birth is the same i.e. 18.11.1947 but in
the declaration regarding place of birth his one of the
passports, he mentioned 'Karanchi' then in India as his place
of birth and in another passport, same is being mentioned as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
4/24
'Bangkok', (Thailand). It is also alleged that activities of the
petitioner and accused no.2, namely Sarju Prasad were
protested by O.P. No.2 and other members of the society, as
they fraudulently interpolated the rules and regulations of the
society to make them office bearers/members of governing
body permanently, which was inserted in memorandum of
society without informing the members of the society in the
year 2014 but same was fraudulently inserted antedated
showing 29.02.2008, which was informed to I.G.
Registration, Patna on 07.04.2014. It is also alleged that
petitioner along with accused no.2 in conspiracy, purchased
several acres of "Parwana land" in Bodh Gaya on
15.05.2014
, 16.06.2014 and 24.07.2014 by means of
cheating the members of the Scheduled Castes community,
who were given land by the Government. It is pointed out that
in all aforesaid purchase, the petitioner introduced himself as
citizen of India, whereas in actual he is citizen of Thailand and
thus committed cheating with the government authority also.
It is further alleged that upon the repeated demands of the
members of the society, the Annual General Meeting of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
5/24
society was held on 25.10.2024 in which Ratneshwar Chakma
was unanimously elected as Secretary of the society (O.P.
No.2) and, thereafter, he assumed the charge on
07.11.2014. The petitioner and accused no.2 did not
participated in the said meeting. After assuming the charge of
Secretary, the O.P. No.2 demanded the petitioner to hand
over the documents of the society but, instead of returning
the relevant documents of the society to O.P. No.2, he wrote
a letter on 25.11.2014 by using very defamatory and
humiliating words. In the meantime, it came to the knowledge
of the society that accused persons got instituted a Title Suit
No.81 of 2014 in the court of Munsiff-II, Gaya through some
strangers, who are not the members of the society,
whereafter the O.P. No.2 appeared in the suit on 01.12.2014
and requested the learned court to add him as necessary
defendant. It is alleged that when the accused persons came
to know about such step taken by O.P. No.2, they sent two
unknown persons, who intercepted the O.P. No.2 when he
was going to temple on 02.12.2014 at about 6:00 PM and
threatened him to face dire consequences if he take any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
6/24
steps against the petitioner and accused no.2 namely, Sarju
Prasad. They also threatened O.P. No.2 to resign from the
society otherwise they will kill him alongwith P. Bodhnanda
Munni, associate /member of the Society.
3. It is submitted by Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned senior
counsel appearing for petitioner that present complaint has
been filed by the Society through its so-called General
Secretary, Ratneshwar Chakma. It is submitted that no
resolution of society appears annexed with complaint petition
as to prosecute petitioner, therefore, the present prosecution
cannot be said to be instituted in capacity of General
Secretary of the Society rather can be treated as a personal
complaint of Ratneshwar Chakma, having a biased and
partitioned approach towards petitioner from very inception.
Therefore, on this score alone, the cognizance taken by
learned A.C.J.M.-II, Gaya for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 504, 420 and 120-B of the IPC appears bad in
eyes of law and therefore, same be quashed/set aside.
4. It is also submitted by Mr. Shahi that most of the
witnesses of the complaint petition are not members of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
7/24
society and they are outsiders having no idea of the internal
account. It is also submitted by Mr. Shahi justifying audit
report of the year 2008-09 towards loan to the society by
petitioner for a sum of Rs.25,28,644/- that aforesaid amount
received by petitioner in US Dollars under custom clearance
from Thailand and upon depositing the amount in the bank
and converting it in Indian currency, it was given loan to the
society. The audit report was already approved by the
Executive Committee of the society. It is also submitted that
it is a very general type of allegation, as the complainant
failed to point out even a single donor who donated into the
personal account of the petitioner. It is submitted that the
transaction of aforesaid money was channelized through
authorized agent namely, ‘Thomas Cook’. It is further
submitted by Mr. Shahi that as far as allegation qua non-
returning of original documents, registers, building plans,
bank passbook, bank statement, cheque books etc. are
concerned, same does not appear sustainable in view of the
fact that all these documents were kept in the office of the
society, but same were stolen, when petitioner was not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
8/24
available in India. The occurrence of theft was reported to the
petitioner by one “Khayap” over phone, who also sent
photographs of the occurrence to the petitioner, whereafter
petitioner directed the officer of the society to lodge FIR.
5. Arguing further, Mr. Shahi submitted that the
third and major allegation regarding cheating and fraud
committed by petitioner qua concealing his personal details
regarding place of birth in his passport also appears wrong
and baseless. It is submitted that regarding the same issue,
the complainant had filed a writ application before Hon’ble
Delhi High Court bearing WP (C) No.7190 of 2016, where
petitioner explained the entire truth through his counter
affidavit in which he had stated that he was born in Karachi
prior to partition and after partition, his family moved to India
in the course of mass migration. After migration, his family
settled in Pune, where the petitioner completed his studies
and was issued Indian Passport on the basis of which, he went
to Thailand in the year 1965 for the purpose of business.
After sometime, he gave an application for citizenship of
Thailand, which was accepted in the year 1983 and,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
9/24
thereafter, he surrendered his Indian Passport to the Indian
Embassy. After obtaining the “Thai” passport, he obtained
Overseas Indian Citizens Card on 10.08.2007. In the course
of renewal of his Thai passport due to typographical error, the
place of birth of the petitioner was written as ‘Bangkok’ in the
place of ‘India’. When this matter was brought into the notice
of Thai Government, it was immediately corrected and new
passport was also issued in which the place of birth has been
correctly mentioned as India. All these corrections were duly
accepted by the Ministry of External Affairs in aforementioned
writ petition and on the basis of the said fact, the writ petition
filed by compliant was withdrawn on 23.05.2017 and,
therefore, this allegation cannot be permitted to be raised
again through this complaint petition. Raising such allegation
in view of order dated 23.05.2017 as passed in WP (C) No.
7190 of 2016 only reflect the malicious approach of
complainant/O.P. No.2 towards petitioner, suggesting that
present complaint was brought with ulterior and oblique
motive just to tarnish the image of petitioner, who served the
society and fulfilled all his commitments for several years.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
10/24
6. It is further submitted by Mr. Shahi that as far as
allegation regarding antedating the clauses in the rules and
regulations of the society, making the Governing Body of the
society to be a permanent body is concerned, same also
appears wrong and unfounded in view of the certificate which
has been issued by I.G. Registration vide its Letter No.345
dated 07.04.2014, where aforesaid amendment was made on
the basis of the resolution of the General Body meeting dated
29.02.2008 and 31.03.2008.
7. It is submitted that a copy of the aforesaid
resolution was obtained under RTI from the office of I.G.
Registration, which has been provided vide Letter No.470
dated 15.05.2014 issued from the office of the Assistant
Inspector, General Registration, Patna, Bihar after perusal of
which, it appears that same has not been singed by this
petitioner. The allegation regarding antedating is also wrong
because after a lapse of six years from the date of submission
of resolution, the amendment was allowed by the I.G.
Registration and the certificate was issued on 07.04.2014
and, therefore, it cannot be said that the amendment was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
11/24
sent on 07.04.2014 itself. It is submitted that this fact was
also wrongly presented before the court, which was
overlooked while taking cognizance against petitioner.
8. It is also submitted by Mr. Shahi that the fifth
and the major allegation, which raised against this petitioner
the purchase of parwana land from members of the scheduled
castes community, it is pointed out that same is the subject
matter of FIR, which was lodged as Bodh Gaya P.S. Case
No.334 of 2014 dated 08.10.2014.
9. It is submitted that aforesaid FIR was lodged on
the basis of the written information of Rajesh Kumar alias
Umesh Kumar, a social worker, who filed a petition in the
court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST in which he has stated
that the complainant is hatching a conspiracy to remove the
petitioner from society and with the said intention, they
forged the signature of Rajesh Kumar alias Umesh Kumar to
lodge the FIR. It is pointed out that the police after
investigation found aforesaid case false but this fact was not
raised before the learned court below through complaint
petition. It is also pointed out that the petitioner had no role in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
12/24
filing of Title Suit No.81 of 2012, where the prayer made by
the complainant to implead as defendant has also been
rejected by learned court below. It is also pointed out that
advancing threat to kill by some unknown persons is to only
aggravate the allegation otherwise having no connection with
this petitioner.
10. It is further submitted by Mr. Shahi that the
learned court below proceeded in this matter in a very
perfunctory manner, where without service report of the
summons, the court below directed for issuance of non-
bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. It is also
pointed out that the petitioner also appeared before the
learned court below through his advocate and filed his petition
under Section 205 of the CrPC along with his vakalatnama
but, without deciding aforesaid petition of personal
exemption, the learned court below issued the process under
Section 82 of the CrPC against petitioner. It is also pointed
out that in the meanwhile, the petitioner has filed anticipatory
bail petition in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Gaya,
bearing ABP No.2530 of 2017, which was rejected on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
13/24
26.03.2018. It is submitted that the petitioner was declared
absconder on 03.11.2018. It is also submitted by Mr. Shahi
that petitioner is a citizen of Thailand and complaint has been
filed by giving his address of Bangkok, where summons issued
by the court were never served upon. It is pointed out that
petitioner, who is a Thai citizen apprehending different types
of threats from the complainant due to which he is unable to
collect the document related to his case and to present his
defence in better manner and while he was in the process of
collecting documents, covid-19 pendemic broke out and the
petitioner could not take steps to challenge the proceedings of
the learned court below. However, the petitioner filed Cr.
Misc. No.11305 of 2021 before this Hon’ble Court for
challenging the order taking cognizance dated 04.11.2016
but the case was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order
dated 12.05.2022.
11. While concluding argument, Mr. Shahi
submitted that the petitioner due to some misunderstanding
resigned from his post from Managing Committee of Society,
where the Chief Abode, the main donor of the society
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
14/24
requested to the petitioner to withdraw his resignation and
resume to the respective post in the Managing Committee,
where it is specifically mentioned in the letter dated
05.07.2013 that after looking at the past performance of the
petitioner, dedication, honesty and loyalty towards the
society, the resignation as submitted by him was declined to
be accepted.
12. It is submitted that the present complaint also
appears to be filed with oblique motive and malicious intention
as to prevent the petitioner to come to India and to participate
in the affairs of the society. In view of all such facts, the
dispute is primarily appears to be arising out of election of
General Secretary of the Society, where all allegations
discussed aforesaid raised with oblique motive and also same
does not appear to constitute any cognizable offence on its
face and, therefore, the present impugned order of
cognizance be quashed/set aside in view of legal ratio as
available through State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors.
reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
13. At this stage, it would be apposite to mention
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
15/24
that the further proceeding of the court below in connection
with Complaint Case No.2042 of 2014 was stayed vide order
dated 15.07.2024 as passed by one of the learned co-
ordinate Bench of this Court.
14. The aforesaid stay order was challenged by
O.P. No.2 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court but, same was
dismissed through Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.13666 of
2024.
15. It would be apposite to reproduce the order
dated 05.11.2024 as passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court
through Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.13666 of 2024,
which is as under:-
“UPON hearing the counsel, the Court
made the following
ORDER
A number of issues and contentions have
been raised. However, we are not inclined to issue
notice in the present special leave petition, as it is
open to the petitioner, Buddhist Thai Bharat
Society, to file an appropriate application before
the High Court where the matter is pending. If
any such application is filed, the same will be
considered and decided expeditiously and in
accordance with law. If required, the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
16/24may also make a mention in the matter before the
High Court.
Recording the aforesaid, the special leave
petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if
any, shall stand disposed of.”
16. In view of aforesaid observation of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the matter was mentioned and was taken up
for final hearing with the consent of the parties.
17. It would be apposite to reproduce the order
dated 23.05.2017 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in WP(C) No.7190 of 2016, which is as under:-
“1. Learned counsel appearing for Ministry
of External Affairs has filed the counter affidavit.
The same is taken on record.
2. Learned counsel for Ministry of External
Affairs submits that there is no error in the
documents issued by the Ministry and error, if
any, may be with the passport that was issued by
the Government of Thailand.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3
submits that the error in the documents issued by
the Government of Thailand has already been
corrected by the said Government.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in view of the affidavit of the
Ministry of External Affairs, he does not wish to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
17/24press the present petition.
5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed
as not pressed for.”
18. It would further be apposite to reproduce para-102
of Bhajan Lal case (supra), which is as under:-
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of
the various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted
and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein
such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined
and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
18/24
(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if
any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order
of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR
or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
19/24
Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
19. It is submitted by Mr. Rana Vikram Singh,
learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.2 that the allegation
against petitioner being the Secretary is serious qua
misappropriation of the fund and cheating of renowned
religious society. It is submitted that the petitioner almost
admitted that he received donations in private capacity and
as he received donations in dollars, it was accepted in his own
account just to get it convert into rupees. It is also submitted
that the petitioner has admitted the purchase of the parwana
land of Scheduled Castes community for which, a police case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
20/24
was lodged. It is also submitted that non-supply of
documents, registers etc. was denied under garb of theft
committed in the office of the society. It is submitted that in
view of all such prima facie admissions, this petition is not
liable to be allowed, as the defence, which has been relied
upon or raised by the petitioner cannot be looked into at this
stage as same is the matter of trial.
20. In support of his submission, learned counsel
has relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as
available through Central Bureau of Investigation vs.
Aryan Singh and Ors. reported in (2023) 18 SCC 399,
where paragraph Nos.-5 and 6 appear relevant, which are as
under:-
“5. Having gone through the impugned
common judgment and order [Aryan Singh v.
CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 4158] passed by
the High Court quashing the criminal
proceedings and discharging the accused, we
are of the opinion that the High Court has
exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the
entire criminal proceedings in exercise of the
limited powers under Section 482 CrPC and/or
in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
21/24the Constitution of India.
6. From the impugned common
judgment and order [Aryan Singh v. CBI,
2022 SCC OnLine P&H 4158] passed by the
High Court, it appears that the High Court has
dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the
High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or
the High Court was considering the
applications against the judgment and order
passed by the learned trial court on conclusion
of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at
the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the
criminal proceedings, while exercising the
powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Court is
not required to conduct the mini trial. The
High Court in the common impugned
judgment and order has observed that the
charges against the accused are not proved.
This is not the stage where the
prosecution/investigating agency is/are
required to prove the charges. The charges
are required to be proved during the trial on
the basis of the evidence led by the
prosecution/investigating agency.”
21. It is further submitted by Mr. Singh that on
earlier occasion a quashing petition was filed by the petitioner
to quash the cognizance order and entire proceedings
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
22/24
through Cr. Misc. No.11305 of 2021 dated 12.05.2022 but,
same was dismissed for default as none appeared on behalf
of petitioner when matter was taken up on board. It is
pointed out that instead of restoring the aforesaid criminal
miscellaneous, the petitioner chooses to file the present
petition without any justification. It is also pointed out that
the anticipatory bail petition of petitioner was rejected by this
Court with a direction to surrender before the court below
but, even after knowing the direction of this Court, the
petitioner intentionally did not appear before the court below
and thereafter, a proceeding under Section 82 and 83 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘CrPC‘) was initiated
against petitioner and he was declared absconder by the
learned trial court. It is also submitted that being an
absconder or proclaimed offender, petitioner is not entitled
for any kind of consideration/relief in view of the legal report
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through State of
MP vs. Pradeep Sharma reported in (2014) 2 SCC 217,
which was also followed in Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. vs.
State of Bihar & Anr reported in 2024 INSC 202.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
23/24
22. It is pointed out that in view of aforesaid
factual and legal aspects, the legal principles as available
through Bhajan Lal case (supra) not appears helping to this
petitioner.
23. From the perusal of record and taking note of
arguments as canvassed by learned counsel appearing for
petitioner, it prima facie appears that the petitioner accepted
receiving of donations in his private account but, some
justification was given in his defence. The petitioner also
accepted that the earlier documents and registers were not
provided to O.P. No.2 but, for same also the defence was
supplied that theft took place in the office of society. All such
facts cannot be looked into at this stage as these defence
version can be taken into consideration during the trial only.
The petitioner was declared permanent absconder by the
court of law and despite of specific direction of this Court to
surrender before the court below, he failed to appear before
learned trial court.
24. In view of aforesaid, the present quashing
petition appears devoid of any merit and, therefore, same
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27343 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
24/24
stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
25. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the
learned trial court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 13.05.2025 Uploading Date 18-06-2025 Transmission Date 18-06-2025