[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Harendra Malik vs State And Anr on 25 March, 2026
2026:UHC:2158
Judgement Reserved on: 05.01.2026
Judgement Delivered on: 25.03.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc.Application No.2240 of 2023
Harendra Malik ......Applicant
Vs.
State and Anr. .....Respondent
Presence:
Mr. M.S. Pal, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. Amreen Bano, learned
counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. B. C. Joshi, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Narayan Har Gupta, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been
filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking
quashing of the summoning order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate / Civil Judge, Kiccha, District Udham Singh
Nagar in Criminal Case No. 994 of 2023, titled State of Uttarakhand
vs. Harendra Malik, as well as the entire criminal proceedings arising
therefrom.
2. The case originates from a First Information Report dated
13.05.2023 lodged at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh
Nagar. The complainant, who is associated with National
Fertilizers Limited (NFL), alleged that the company had entered
into contractual arrangements with M/s Tarai Farm Seeds & Co., a
partnership firm engaged for storage, processing and handling of
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2240 of 2023, Harendra Malik Vs State and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:2158
seeds supplied by NFL. The Applicant is stated to be one of the
partners of the said firm.
3. According to the allegations in the FIR, under the
contractual arrangement the firm was entrusted with the
responsibility of receiving raw seeds supplied by NFL, segregating
and processing the seeds, and carrying out related operations
including grading, packing, weighing, stacking, stitching and
tagging, in accordance with the standards prescribed by the
concerned authorities. It is alleged that only those processed seeds
which were approved after quality verification were to be
dispatched, while rejected seeds were to remain accounted for and
returned in accordance with the contractual terms.
4. The FIR further alleges that during inspection conducted
by representatives of NFL, discrepancies were noticed in the
quantity of processed seeds which, according to the records of the
company, ought to have been present in the godown of the
contractor. It is alleged that a substantial quantity of seeds
entrusted to the firm had been dishonestly disposed of and sold in
the market without authorization, thereby causing wrongful loss to
NFL and corresponding unlawful gain to the firm.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the police
registered the case and commenced investigation. Upon completion
of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet
dated 25.07.2023 against the Applicant alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2240 of 2023, Harendra Malik Vs State and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:2158
6. The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon consideration of the
charge sheet and material accompanying it, took cognizance of the
offences and passed the impugned summoning order dated
09.08.2023 directing the Applicant to face trial. Aggrieved by the
said order and the continuation of the criminal proceedings, the
Applicant has approached this Court by way of the present
application under Section 482 CrPC.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant
submits that the criminal proceedings initiated against the
Applicant are wholly misconceived and arise out of a purely
commercial and contractual dispute between the parties. It is
contended that the relationship between the Applicant's firm and
National Fertilizers Limited was governed entirely by contractual
arrangements relating to storage and processing of seeds, and any
dispute regarding stock verification or accounting of goods is
essentially civil in nature.
8. It is further submitted that the allegations contained in the
FIR and the material collected during investigation do not disclose
the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections
409 or 420 IPC. According to learned Counsel, there was no
dishonest intention on the part of the Applicant at any point of
time, nor was there any misappropriation of entrusted property as
alleged.
9. Learned Senior Counsel also contends that the
investigation has been conducted in a mechanical manner and the
charge sheet has been filed without proper appreciation of the
contractual terms and the actual functioning of the processing
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2240 of 2023, Harendra Malik Vs State and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:2158
arrangement between the parties. It is submitted that the
discrepancy in quantities, if any, is attributable to accounting or
procedural issues arising in the course of business operations and
does not constitute a criminal offence.
10. It is also argued that the continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the Applicant amounts to an abuse of the
process of the Court, particularly when the matter essentially
concerns contractual obligations and commercial dealings between
the parties. The Applicant therefore seeks quashing of the
summoning order and the entire criminal proceedings in exercise
of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC.
11. Learned AGA appearing for the State, as well as learned
counsel appearing for the private Respondent, oppose the
application and submit that the FIR and the charge sheet disclose a
prima facie case against the Applicant.
12. It is submitted that the material collected during
investigation indicates that a substantial quantity of seeds
entrusted to the contractor firm was found missing during
inspection and that the same had allegedly been disposed of
without authorization. According to the prosecution, the
allegations clearly disclose dishonest misappropriation of property
entrusted to the firm and therefore attract the provisions of Section
409 IPC, in addition to the offence of cheating.
13. Learned counsel further submit that the investigation has
been completed and the charge sheet has already been filed before
the competent court. The learned Magistrate, after considering the
material placed on record, has taken cognizance and issued
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2240 of 2023, Harendra Malik Vs State and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:2158
summons to the Applicant. At this stage, it is argued, this Court
ought not to undertake a detailed examination of disputed
questions of fact.
14. It is contended that the defence sought to be raised by the
Applicant involves matters which can be properly examined only
during trial and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under
Section 482 CrPC.
15. The present application has been filed invoking the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the summoning order
dated 09.08.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate / Civil Judge,
Kiccha, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 994 of
2023, as well as the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom.
16. The scope and ambit of the inherent powers of the High
Court under Section 482 CrPC are well settled. The power is
extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection and only in cases where the Court is satisfied that
continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of
the process of the Court or where interference is necessary to secure
the ends of justice.
17. The parameters governing the exercise of such jurisdiction
were authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein
illustrative categories were enumerated where interference under
Section 482 may be justified. At the same time, it was emphasized
that such power should not be exercised to stifle legitimate
prosecution.
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2240 of 2023, Harendra Malik Vs State and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:2158
18. More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401
reiterated that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC, should not conduct a meticulous examination of
the evidence or undertake a mini trial. Where the allegations in the
FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose
commission of a cognizable offence, the criminal proceedings
ordinarily ought to be permitted to continue.
19. In the present case, the allegations arise out of a contractual
arrangement between National Fertilizers Limited and a
partnership firm in which the Applicant is stated to be a partner.
The material placed on record indicates that the firm had been
entrusted with storage, processing and handling of seeds supplied
by the company. The prosecution case, as reflected from the FIR
and the charge sheet, is that during inspection discrepancies were
noticed in the quantity of processed seeds which ought to have
been available in the godown of the contractor, and that the
entrusted stock had been dishonestly disposed of or sold without
authorization.
20. The charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer
alleges commission of offences under Sections 409 and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of
the charge sheet and accompanying material, has taken cognizance
and issued summons to the Applicant.
21. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the
Applicant is that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil
or contractual in nature and that the criminal proceedings have
6
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2240 of 2023, Harendra Malik Vs State and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:2158
been initiated with an oblique motive. According to the Applicant,
the alleged discrepancies in quantities are matters of accounting or
contractual interpretation and do not disclose the ingredients of
any criminal offence.
22. This Court is conscious that in certain cases disputes
arising from commercial or contractual relationships may assume a
predominantly civil character. However, it is equally well settled
that the mere existence of a civil remedy does not, by itself, bar the
initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings where the
allegations disclose the ingredients of a criminal offence.
23. At the stage of considering an application under Section
482 CrPC, the Court is not expected to enter into an appreciation of
the evidence or to adjudicate disputed questions of fact. The Court
is required only to examine whether the allegations, taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie disclose the
commission of an offence.
24. In the present case, the allegations in the FIR and the
material collected during investigation indicate that the firm to
which the Applicant is connected had been entrusted with certain
quantities of seeds belonging to the complainant company and that
shortages were detected during inspection. It is further alleged that
the said stock had been disposed of without authorization.
25. Whether the discrepancies in the quantities are the result of
dishonest misappropriation, as alleged by the prosecution, or
whether they are attributable to accounting issues or other
explanations as claimed by the Applicant, are matters which
involve appreciation of evidence and examination of factual
7
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2240 of 2023, Harendra Malik Vs State and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:2158
aspects. Such issues cannot appropriately be determined in
proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
26. This Court also notes that the investigation in the matter
has already culminated in submission of a charge sheet and that the
learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences alleged. At
this stage, the defence sought to be raised by the Applicant can
more appropriately be examined by the trial court in accordance
with law.
27. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to
evaluate the sufficiency or reliability of the evidence collected
during investigation. So long as the allegations in the FIR and the
material accompanying the charge sheet disclose the basic
ingredients of the offences alleged, the criminal proceedings cannot
be quashed merely on the ground that the Applicant disputes the
correctness of the allegations.
28. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the
settled principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC, this Court is of the considered view that the
present case does not fall within the exceptional categories where
interference would be justified at this stage.
ORDER
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the impugned summoning order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate / Civil 8 Criminal Misc. Application No. 2240 of 2023, Harendra Malik Vs State and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:2158 Judge, Kiccha, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 994 of 2023, or the criminal proceedings arising therefrom.
Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed.
(Ashish Naithani J.) SB 9 Criminal Misc. Application No. 2240 of 2023, Harendra Malik Vs State and Anr-
Ashish Naithani J.