Uttarakhand High Court
Sachin Nehra vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 10 June, 2025
2025:UHC:4951
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI
10th June, 2025
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1664 of 2021
Sachin Nehra ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another ...Respondents
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Ramji Shrivastava,
Advocate.
Counsel for the State : Mr. B.N. Maulekhi, A.G.A.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The present application under Section 482 CrPC has
been instituted by the Applicant seeking quashing of the
charge sheet dated 19.10.2020 submitted in Case Crime No.
0391 of 2019, under Sections 420, 504, 506, and 120-B IPC,
Police Station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun, and the
consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom in
Criminal Case No. 472 of 2021, 'State Vs. Anuj Agarwal and
Others' and the summoning order dated 15.01.2021 passed by
the Court of First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dehradun, insofar as they relate to the Applicant.
2. As per the averments in the FIR, the genesis of the
case lies in a business arrangement formed around the wine
trade involving one Amit Agrawal, who introduced himself as
running a company styled as "Kuber Global Syndicate" with
operations in Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand. Under inducement
of promised gains, the Applicant, his wife Smt. Indu Nehra and
the complainant, Late Deepak Goswami, agreed to join the
firm.
1
Criminal Misc. Application No.1664 of 2021-----Sachin Nehra vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4951
3. On 22.06.2017, a partnership deed was executed,
followed by a supplementary deed dated 09.01.2018, wherein
the profit-sharing ratio was set at 25:50:25 among Amit
Agrawal, Indu Nehra, and Deepak Goswami, respectively.
4. It is stated that under pressure exerted by co-
accused Amit Agrawal, loans amounting to ₹1,05,40,000 were
arranged in two parts :₹43,40,000 by mortgaging the property
of the complainant and ₹62,00,000 by mortgaging the property
of the Applicant's wife. The proceeds from these loans were
deposited into the firm's accounts and subsequently withdrawn
by the said co-accused into various personal accounts of his
family members, including Anuj Agrawal and Pooja Agrawal.
5. Learned counsel for the Applicant alleges that
despite investing in the firm and allowing their assets to be
mortgaged, neither the Applicant nor the complainant received
any return from the business.
6. Learned counsel submits it for the Applicant that no
specific role or overt act can be attributed to the Applicant
which would prima facie disclose commission of offences under
Sections 420, 504, 506 or 120-B IPC.
7. Learned counsel further submits for the Applicant
that no material collected during the investigation may
establish cheating, criminal conspiracy, threats or intentional
insult on the Applicant's part.
8. It is argued by learned counsel for the Applicant
that he is, in fact, a victim of the acts of co-accused Amit
Agrawal and his family members, and that the summoning
order passed by the learned Magistrate is mechanical in
nature, rendered without proper application of mind, and
deserves to be quashed.
2
Criminal Misc. Application No.1664 of 2021-----Sachin Nehra vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4951
9. Per contra, learned State Counsel, relying upon the
counter affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, submits that
the allegations made in the FIR were duly investigated, and
during the course of the investigation, sufficient material
implicating the Applicant surfaced.
10. It is submitted that the charge sheet dated
19.10.2020 was filed after due verification of facts, and the
evidence on record prima facie discloses the Applicant's
complicity in the offence. It is further stated that although the
Applicant was not the primary beneficiary of the financial
misappropriation, he enabled the said transactions by signing
the relevant instruments and cheques, and his involvement
cannot be said to be merely passive or innocent.
11. The State contends that the allegations against the
Applicant are not limited to civil liability or business failure but
involve elements of criminality, including misrepresentation,
wrongful gain, and breach of trust. The collection of funds
through mortgaging third-party properties, followed by
diversion of funds to unrelated personal accounts, has a
precise bearing on the ingredients of Section 420 IPC.
Moreover, as alleged, the concerted acts of Amit Agrawal, his
family members, and the Applicant make out a prima facie
case of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC.
12. It is also argued that the material on record does
not bear out the Applicant's plea of being a victim. On the
contrary, the investigation suggests that the Applicant actively
participated in the transactions, facilitating the illegal
appropriation of funds. His acts were not merely inadvertent or
negligent but formed part of a pattern of conduct giving rise to
criminal culpability.
3
Criminal Misc. Application No.1664 of 2021-----Sachin Nehra vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4951
13. The State further submits that the contentions
raised in the instant application pertain to factual disputes and
matters of defence, which cannot be conclusively adjudicated
in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Such powers should be invoked sparingly, not as a substitute
for trial. The Applicant is at liberty to advance his defence
before the trial court, particularly at the stage of framing of
charge or seeking discharge.
14. The learned State Counsel urges that the charge
sheet has been submitted upon due satisfaction of the
investigating authority, and the learned Magistrate, having
perused the same, has rightly summoned the Applicant. The
summoning order, though brief, reflects application of judicial
mind and is not vitiated by any legal infirmity warranting
interference by this Court.
15. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused
the records.
16. At the outset, it is to be noted that the jurisdiction
under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and in the
rarest of rare cases, where the allegations levelled in the
complaint or charge sheet, even if taken at face value and
accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie disclose the
commission of any offence or where the proceedings are
manifestly attended with mala fide or are maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. The
parameters governing the exercise of such inherent jurisdiction
have been delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin State of
Haryana v. BhajanLal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and reaffirmed
in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra,
(2021) 6 SCC 116.
4
Criminal Misc. Application No.1664 of 2021-----Sachin Nehra vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4951
17. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the
Applicant was one of the participants in a business venture
involving the company "Kuber Global Syndicate," ostensibly
operated by co-accused Amit Agrawal. A partnership deed
dated 22.06.2017 and a supplementary deed dated
09.01.2018 have been brought on record, reflecting that the
Applicant's wife, Smt. Indu Nehra and the deceased
complainant, Deepak Goswami, were also partners. While it
may be true that disputes have arisen concerning the
appropriation of funds and returns from the business, the
scope of the present proceedings is to examine whether any
prima facie offence is made out against the Applicant on the
strength of the charge sheet.
18. From the record, loans amounting to ₹1,05,40,000
were arranged by mortgaging properties belonging to the
complainant and the Applicant's wife. These funds were
allegedly deposited into the accounts of the said company and
thereafter diverted into accounts of the co-accused and their
family members. The Applicant's role, as per the prosecution,
was not merely passive. Statements of witnesses recorded
under Section 161 CrPC suggest that the Applicant was aware
of these transactions and signed cheques facilitating the
withdrawal and diversion of funds.
19. The contention of the Applicant that the dispute is
purely civil, arising from a failed business arrangement, does
not, in my considered view, warrant quashing of the
proceedings at this stage. In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC
India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
clarified that a breach of contract may give rise to civil
consequences. Still, where dishonest intention is present at the
inception, criminal proceedings may be maintainable. Similarly,
in S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241, it
5
Criminal Misc. Application No.1664 of 2021-----Sachin Nehra vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4951
was held that the mere existence of a civil remedy is no bar to
criminal prosecution where allegations disclose the ingredients
of a penal offence.
20. Further, the Applicant's argument that he is himself
a victim of the acts of co-accused Amit Agrawal cannot be
conclusively adjudicated at this stage. The nature of the
Applicant's involvement, his knowledge and participation in the
financial transactions, and whether he acted in good faith or in
furtherance of a conspiracy are all questions of fact that
require evidence and cannot be determined in summary
proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
21. The material on record, including the statements of
Deepak Goswami and Yogesh Kumar, discloses that the
Applicant actively facilitated financial decisions and signed
documents that enabled the diversion of funds from the
business account to the private accounts of the accused
persons. These acts, if proved, may attract penal liability under
Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. Whether such acts were done
innocently or with dishonest intention is a matter that lies in
the domain of the trial.
22. As regards the submission that no overt act has
been specifically attributed to the Applicant in the charge
sheet, it must be noted that in offences involving conspiracy
and financial fraud, direct overt acts are not always necessary.
The law recognizes constructive liability based on the role
played in furtherance of a common design.
23. In Yogesh v. Stateof Maharashtra, (2008) 10
SCC 394, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the existence
of a prima facie case is sufficient to proceed with trial, and a
detailed inquiry into sufficiency or reliability of evidence is not
permissible at the stage of quashing.
6
Criminal Misc. Application No.1664 of 2021-----Sachin Nehra vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4951
24. This Court also finds no procedural irregularity in
filing the charge sheet or in the order passed by the learned
Magistrate. While the summoning order is brief, it cannot be
said to be devoid of application of mind. The Magistrate has
recorded satisfaction upon perusal of the charge sheet and the
accompanying material, which is the legal requirement under
Section 204 CrPC.
25. Thus, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that
the criminal proceedings are wholly devoid of merit or that
continuance of the same would amount to abuse of the process
of law. The disputed questions raised by the Applicant fall
squarely within the province of appreciation of evidence by the
trial court.
ORDER
Given the foregoing discussion, this Court does not
find any ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC for quashing the charge sheet dated
19.10.2020, the summoning order dated 15.01.2021, or the
consequential criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 472 of
2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 0391 of 2019, Police
Station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun, insofar as they relate to
the Applicant.
The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1664 of
2021 lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
___________________
ASHISH NAITHANI, J.
Dt: 10.06.2025
SB
7
Criminal Misc. Application No.1664 of 2021—–Sachin Nehra vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another.
Ashish Naithani J.