Vineet Ranjan Srivastava vs Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2763 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vineet Ranjan Srivastava vs Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru. ... on 31 July, 2025

Author: Saurabh Lavania

Bench: Saurabh Lavania

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44368
 
Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6174 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Vineet Ranjan Srivastava
 
Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru. Anti Corruption Branch Lko.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Shankar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
 

1. Heard Shri Saurabh Shankar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for sole-opposite party/CBI.

2. By means of the present application, the applicant has assailed the order(s) dated 19.06.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 13A of 2010 (CBI Vs. Vineet Ranjan Srivastava) whereby the Special Judge, CBI, Anti Corruption (West), Lucknow (in short "trial Court"), whereby the trial Court has framed charges against the applicant for the offense under Section120B Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") read with Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 120B IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short "Act of 1988") arising out of FIR No. RC0062007A0023 dated 13.12.2007, Police Station - CBI, Anti Corruption Branch Lucknow, and the applicant has also assailed the entire criminal proceedings.

3. It would be apt to indicate that the application of the applicant seeking discharge was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 22.05.2025 and thereafter the applicant filed the Criminal Revision No. 630 of 2025 before this Court and according to paragraph 23 of the instant application, this revision has been rendered infructuous.

4. The facts of the case which are necessary for deciding the present application are as under.

5. The applicant approached this Court by means of APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 2765 of 2010 (Vineet Ranjan Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. Thru. C.B.I. Acb Lucknow). By this application, the applicant challenged the summoning order dated 13.05.2010 and charge-sheet filed in the case, arising out of FIR No. RC 0062007A0023/2007, Case No. 13/2010-State v. K.K. Trivedi & others, under Sections 420, 468, 120-B read with Section 471 IPC and Section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of the Act of 1988, pending in the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption (West) CBI, Lucknow.

6. This Court, vide detailed order dated 16.10.2023, rejected the above indicated application. The order, being relevant, is extracted herein-under:-

"1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Misra, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh holding brief of Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent-CBI and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed for setting aside the summoning order dated 13.05.2010 including the impugned charge-sheet arising out of FIR No. RC 0062007A0023/2007, Case No. 13/2010-State v. K.K. Trivedi & others, under Sections 420, 468, 120-B read with Section 471 IPC and Section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption (West) CBI, Lucknow.

3. The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 13.12.2007 against 15 persons, not including the applicant, stating that during the year 2002-04, certain bank officers entered into criminal conspiracy with private persons with a common object to commit the offences of cheating, forgery and criminal misconduct by sanctioning and disbursing housing loans and CCH limits against forged and bogus documents and non-existing firms/ properties and thereby caused wrongful loss to Canara Bank for Rs. 59.70 laks, Union Bank of India for Rs. 201.59 lakhs and Central Bank of India for Rs. 49.40 lakhs approximately.

4. After investigation, the CBI submitted a charge sheet on 30.04.2010 against 15 persons, including the applicant. Regarding the applicant, the allegations levelled in the charge sheet is that he was an approved valuer of the bank. M/s Sagar Traders had applied for obtaining CCH limit of Rs. 25 lakh on the basis of projected sale of Rs. 150 lakh, against the actual sale of Rs. 36.70 lakh and 38.00 lakhs for the financial year 2001-02 and 2002-03. A collateral security was created in the form of mortgage of a building, which was valued at Rs. 2.73 crores by the bank's approved valuer-the applicant.

5. On 27.01.2003, the applicant had submitted a valuation report regarding another property in the name of co-accused Smt. Phool Kali at Rs. 34.99 lakhs. A CCH limit of Rs. 30 lakh was sanctioned on 07.03.2003 to M/s New Shukla Medical Stores, of which Sri Virendera Kumar Shukla and Smt. Phool Kali were partners. After the account was declared NPA, the property was got valued through a consultancy firm, which opined the properties value to be 13.85 lakh only. The charge sheet mentions that this fact shows that the applicant had not submitted the earlier valuation report in a proper manner.

6. The charge sheet states that the borrowers namely Prem Kumar Gupta, proprietor of M/s Sagar Traders and Virendra Shukla and Smt. Phool Kali, the partners of M/s New Shukla Medical Stores have misused/ misappropriated the loan amounts and have cheated the bank to the tune of Rs. 123 lakh in connivance with the then Branch Manager and Manager Credit of the bank, by submitting false and forged documents and they have caused wrongful loss to the bank and corresponding gain to themselves. It is alleged that the offences were alleged by the other co-accused persons in connivance with the applicant and the applicant has been charged with commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 r/w 471 IPC and 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

7. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the charge sheet itself records that the CCH limit of Rs. 30 lakhs was sanctioned by the bank officials, who failed to obtain Income Tax returns, Sale Tax returns and audited balance sheet of the firm before sanctioning CCH limit. The CCH limit was sanctioned ignoring the bank norms and actual status of the firm. He has submitted that the applicant had no role to play in verification of the aforesaid documents or in sanction of the CCH limit and the housing loans.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the application and he has submitted that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the applicant is an approved valuer of the bank and he had given a false valuation report dated 27.01.2003 in respect of plot no. 1 (khasra no. 52 and 53 with shops constructed over there), which property was in the name of co-accused Phool Kali, on the basis whereof CCH limit of Rs. 30 lakh was sanctioned to New Shukla Medical Stores, Lucknow.

9. I have considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

10. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed several precedents on the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and extracted the following principles: -

"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.

(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 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.

103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."

11. In K. Ramakrishna v. State of Bihar, (2000) 8 SCC 547, it was held that: -

"4. The trial court under Section 239 and the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not called upon to embark upon an inquiry as to whether evidence in question is reliable or not or evidence relied upon is sufficient to proceed further or not. However, if upon the admitted facts and the documents relied upon by the complainant or the prosecution and without weighing or sifting of evidence, no case is made out, the criminal proceedings instituted against the accused are required to be dropped or quashed?"

12. In Soma Chakravarty v. State, (2007) 5 SCC 403, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

"if on the basis of material on record the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. Before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commitment of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial."

13. In Akbar Hussain versus State of J&K, (2018) 16 SCC 85, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

"5. ... At the time of framing the charge, the trial court has to consider the material before it by the investigating officer and form a prima facie opinion thereupon as to whether it is a fit case for framing of charge under a particular provision. The standard of proof test, which is to be applied at the final stage, in order to find out as to whether the accused is guilty or not on the basis of actual evidence produced is not to be applied at the stage of framing of the charge. Charge can be framed even when there is a strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Court, which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to existence of the factual ingredient constituting the offence alleged."

14. In State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Versus Akhil Sharda and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered."

15. In Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 9 SCC 35, it was held that :

"exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC."

16. When we examine the facts o the present case in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases, we find that the prosecution claims that the CCH limits in question were sanctioned to M/s Sagar Trades and New Shukla Medical Stores after taking into consideration the valuation reports submitted by the applicant, which were found to be false. Some other documents which were also taken into consideration by the bank, viz. income tax returns, sales tax returns and the projected sales etc. were also found to be false, but it will not make any difference on the conduct of the applicant in submitting false valuation reports of the property mortgaged for obtaining CCH limits, which valuation reports were found to be false and properties were found to be grossly overvalued by the applicant. The valuation reports had also formed the basis for sanction of the CCH limits, apart from certain other documents.

17. Detailed scrutiny of the allegations and evidence is not to be done by the Court at this stage and the Court has merely to see whether the allegations leveled against the applicant make out a case for his trial for the offences alleged or not. From the allegations leveled in the FIR, commission of the offences alleged against the applicant is prima facie made out. The present case does not fall under any category mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

18. The applicant lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed."

7. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to indicate that copy of the order dated 16.10.2023 has not been annexed along with the present application and this order has been placed before this Court by Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for sole-opposite party/CBI, which is taken on record.

8. In regard to order dated 16.10.2023, quoted above, it would also be relevant to indicate that it was the duty of learned counsel for the applicant to place this order on record for proper adjudication of the case in issue. To the view of this Court, this amounts to concealment of material facts before this Court.

9. From the above referred order dated 16.10.2023, it appears that entire criminal proceedings were challenged on the basis of facts narrated in para 2 of the same.

10. Present application for the reliefs sought has been filed, as indicated by learned counsel for the applicant Shri Saurabh Shankar Srivastava, on the basis of the averments indicated in para 26 of the present application, which is extracted herein-under :-

"That the Learned Trial Court, in a stereotyped, cut-copy-paste and cursory manner, has repeatedly recorded an erroneous finding that the Applicant had availed loans jointly with other co-accused, thereby completely misrepresenting and distorting his actual role while passing the impugned order. The Applicant's role has been arbitrarily twisted and wrongly projected as that of a borrower, whereas the charge sheet clearly alleges only that the Applicant, in his professional capacity, had submitted a valuation report for Union Bank of India, Sachivalaya Branch, Lucknow, and does not attribute to him any role as a loan applicant or beneficiary.

11. It is to be noted that the applicant challenging the order dated 19.06.2025, whereby his discharge application was rejected, filed the Criminal Revision No. 630 of 2025 before this Court under Section 438 BNSS read with Section 442 BNSS, akin to Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. (now repealed). This revision from para 23 of the instant application appears to be pending till date as in this paragraph it is indicated that on account of framing of charge the revision has been rendered infrucutous and a specific averment regarding dismissal of revision has not been made in this paragraph 23.

12. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the applicant Shri Saurabh Shankar Srivastava on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Mitra vs. State of M.P. and others; AIR 2003 SC 1069, M/s. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and others vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and others; AIR 2005 SC 9, Anil Khadkiwala vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.; AIR 2019 SC 3583, Bhisham Lal Verma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.; AIROnline 2023 SC 1140, M.C. Ravikumar Vs. D.S. Velmurugan and Others; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1498 and this Court at Allahabad in Ravindra Pratap Shahi @ Pappu Shahi Vs. State of U.P. and Another; 2021 SCC OnLine All 778 : 2022 Cri LJ 393 and Shiv Shankar Soni Vs. State of U.P. and Another; 2023 SCC OnLine All 2252 : (2024) 3 All LJ (NOC 90) 28.

13. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid as also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties also various pronouncements regarding entertainability and maintainability of second proceedings undre Section 528 BNSS, aking to Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now repealed), this Court finds that no interference in the matter is required. It is for the following facts/reasons :-

(i) The facts/grounds which were available with the applicant at the time of filing of first application i.e. APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 2765 of 2010, particularly based upon the fact that the applicant being approved valuer submitted a valuation report, were taken note of by this Court and upon due consideration this Court dismissed the application after observing that prima facie case against the applicant is made out.

(ii) For coming to the aforesaid conclusion, this Court considered the fact that valuation report submitted by the applicant was found to be false as in report of the applicant the value of the property was shown as Rs. 30 lakh and after declaration of account as NPA account the valuation report was obtained and according to the same the said property was of Rs. 13.85 lakh only.

(iii) From the aforesaid, prima facie, it appears that the valuation report was submitted by the applicant in connivance with the borrower for obtaining CCH limit.

(iv) From the averments made in paragraph 26 of the instant application, quoted above in paragraph 10 of this judgment, it is apparent that on the same very ground the present application has been filed.

(v) In the case of Bhisham Lal Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1399, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

"6. Long thereafter, the petitioner filed his first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., viz., Criminal Misc. Application No. 8465 of 2018, before the Allahabad High Court. Therein, he chose to challenge only the Government's sanction order dated 03.12.2013. The State opposed the application, pointing out that a challenge to the sanction could be made before the Trial Court. Thereupon, the petitioner's counsel sought liberty to approach the Trial Court by way of an appropriate application challenging the sanction. Accepting that plea, the High Court disposed of the application, vide order dated 15.12.2020, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Trial Court and challenge the sanction order. Significantly, at the time of filing of this first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the charge sheet was very much on record and the learned Sessions Judge, Rampur, had already taken cognizance.

7. However, it was only in the year 2022 that the petitioner felt inspired to file a second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., viz., Criminal Misc. Application No. 2014 of 2022. His prayers therein were to quash the charge sheet dated 30.04.2015; the cognizance order dated 12.06.2015; and the proceedings in Special Case No. 19 of 2016, insofar as he was concerned. This application was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court, vide order dated 20.02.2023. Therein, the High Court noted that the petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 8465 of 2018 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a limited prayer - to quash the sanction order dated 30.12.2013. Holding that it was not open to the petitioner to go on challenging the proceedings one by one and as he had not felt aggrieved by the charge sheet or the order of cognizance when he had filed the first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court concluded that the subsequent petition challenging the same would not be maintainable and dismissed the application. It is against this order that the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present case.

8. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, learned senior counsel, would argue that a second petition is maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. He relied on the judgment of this Court in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Mohan Singh and others1. Therein, it was held that a subsequent application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, presently Section 482 Cr.P.C, would be maintainable in changed circumstances. It was affirmed that a subsequent application, which is not a (1975) 3 SCC 706 repeat application squarely on the same facts and circumstances, would be maintainable. To the same effect was the more recent decision of this Court in Anil Khadkiwala vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another2. Earlier, in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla and another 3, this Court held that when the first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C was withdrawn with liberty to avail remedies, if any, available in law, the High Court would not be denuded of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on being petitioned again and the principle of res judicata would not stand attracted. Again, in Vinod Kumar, IAS. vs. Union of India and others4, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court observed that dismissal of an earlier petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C would not bar filing of a subsequent petition thereunder in case the facts so justify.

9. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned amicus curiae, would however point out that entertainment of the second petition in Mohan Singh (supra) was held permissible as the circumstances obtaining at the time of the subsequent petition were clearly different from what they were at the time of the earlier one and that was the distinguishing factor which saved the second petition. He would further point out that, in Simrikhia vs. Dolley (2019) 17 SCC 294 (2007) 4 SCC 70 Writ Petition No. 255 of 2021, decided on 29.06.2021 = 2021 SCC OnLine SC 559 Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and another 5, this Court cautioned that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked to override the bar of review under Section 362 Cr.P.C. Reference was made to Sooraj Devi vs. Pyare Lal and another 6 which held that the inherent power of the Court could not be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He also drew our attention to R. Annapurna vs. Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and others7, wherein a quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed on 28.01.1995 and without mentioning the same, another petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a similar prayer. Noting that the second petition was not made on the strength of anything which had developed after 28.01.1995 but only on the facts which subsisted prior to that date, this Court held that the second petition was not maintainable, as the High Court did not have the power to upset the order dated 28.01.1995 which had attained finality.

10. In S. Madan Kumar vs. K. Arjunan 8, the Madras High Court observed that a person who invokes Section 482 Cr.P.C. should honestly come before the Court raising all the pleas available to him at that point of (1990) 2 SCC 437 (1981) 1 SCC 500 (2002) 10 SCC 401 (2006) 1 MWN (Cri) DCC 1 = 2006 SCC Online Mad 94 time and he is not supposed to approach the Court with instalment pleas. It was further observed that there may be a change of circumstances during the course of criminal proceedings which would give scope for the person aggrieved to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, but when he is posted with all the facts and circumstances of a case, he cannot withhold part of it for the purpose of filing yet another petition seeking the same relief.

11. We are in complete agreement with these observations of the Madras High Court. Though it is clear that there can be no blanket rule that a second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not lie in any situation and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the individual case, it is not open to a person aggrieved to raise one plea after the other, by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though all such pleas were very much available even at the first instance. Permitting the filing of successive petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ignoring this principle would enable an ingenious accused to effectively stall the proceedings against him to suit his own interest and convenience, by filing one petition after another under Section 482 Cr.P.C., irrespective of when the cause therefor arose. Such abuse of process cannot be permitted."

14. For the aforesaid, to the view of this Court, the present application has no force. It is accordinglyrejected. Costs made easy.

Order Date :- 31.7.2025

Mohit Singh/-