Dr. Pravin Rustam Rao Borde S/o Rustam Rao Borde Aged About 40 Years
R/o Flat No.-202, 2nd Floor, Mahalaxmi Apartment, Beed Bypass, Aurangabad
(M.H.)
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Officer In Charge, Police Station
Dindayal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Vinita Jha W/o Mukesh Jha Aged About 32 Years R/o Kailashpuri, Near
Yogmata Mandir, Tikrapara, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Mukesh Jha S/o Ayodhya Datt Jha Aged About 43 Years R/o Kailashpuri,
Near Yogmata Mandir, Tikrapara, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Ashish Tiwari S/o Madan Mohan Tiwari Aged About 43 Years R/o Sector-
10, Civic Center, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted
by Mr. Akhand Pratap and Mr. Niraj Baghel,
Advocates.
For Respondent/State Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government
Advocate.
For Respondent No. 2 to 4 : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Anshul Tiwari and Mr. Aditya Dhar, Advocates.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate, Mr.
B.P.Sharma, Mr. Akhand Pratap, Mr. Niraj Baghel, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned
Deputy Government Advocate for the State as well as Mr. Manoj
Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anshul Tiwari and
Mr. Aditya Dhar, learned counsel for the private respondents.
2. Since the facts and issues involved in both the above writ petitions are
3. In WPCr No. 81/2025, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):
"a. A writ and/or an order in the nature of mandamus do issue
calling for records pertaining to case of petitioner from the
Court concerned for perusal of this Hon'ble Court, if deem fit.
b. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do
issue quashing the Final Report No. 7/25, dated 13.1.2025
filed consequent to registration of FIR No. 0462/2023 dated
12.10.2023 for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and
Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha Tatha
Rogopchar Sambandhi Sthapnaye Anugyapan Adhiniyam,
2010 and also order taking cognizance by the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Raipur, in Criminal Case No.
685/2025 being in utter violation of petitioner's fundamental,
constitutional rights and also amounting to abuse of process of
Court and abuse of process of law and liable to be nipped at
the bud in the peculiar factual matrix of the case and in the
interest of justice.
c. Cost of the proceedings.
d. Any other writs or directions that may be deemed fit and just
in the facts and circumstances of the case."
4. In WPCr No. 120/2025, the petitioner has prayed for the following
relief(s):
"10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of mandamus do
issue calling for records pertaining to case of petitioner from
the Court concerned for perusal of this Hon'ble Court, if deem
fit.
10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do
issue quashing the Final Report No.7/25 dated 13.1.2025
consequent to registration of filed FIR No.0462/2023 dated
12.10.2023 for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and
Section 40f the Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha Tatha
Rogopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye Anugyapan Adhiniyam,
2010 and also order taking cognizance of offence dated
27.1.2025 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate
1" Class, Raipur, In Criminal Case No.685/2025 being in utter
violation of petitioner's fundamental, constitutional rights and
also amounting to abuse of process of court and abuse of
process of law and liable to be nipped at the bud in the
peculiar factual matrix of the case and in the interest of justice
10.3 Cost of the proceedings.
10.4 Any other writs or directions that may be deemed fit and
just in the facts & circumstances of case."
5. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners are that a written
complaint was made by the private respondents i.e. Mukesh Jha, Ashish
Tiwari, and Smt. Vinita Jha, to the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Raipur as well as Station House Officer, Police Station, DD Nagar,
Raipur on 06.07.2022. Pursuant to the same, an FIR bearing Crime No.
0462/2023 for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (for
short, the IPC) and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha
Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye Anugyapan Adhiniyam, 2010
(for short 'the Adhiniyam, 2010') in respect of alleged incident taken
place between 2.2.2021 and 12.10.2023, was registered.
6. The allegations levelled against the petitioners by the private
respondents in the complaint was that the private respondents came to
know in the year 2020 that a new hospital is going to be opened at
Mahadev Ghat, Raipura, by name New Raipura Hospital and the said
hospital requires eligible persons for opening a medical store in the said
hospital. The private respondents intended to open a medical shop and
they were having a qualified pharmacist also. Hence, they contacted
Dinesh Giri Goswami who told them that he is Doctor in Medicine and
also that Dr. Pravin Rustam Rao Borde and Dr. Urvashi Phuljhale are
associated with the said hospital and they have the licence to run the
hospital from the Department of Health. The private respondents
expressed their willingness to open a medical store in the said hospital
for which a meeting between Dr. Dinesh Giri Goswami, Dr. Pravin
Rustam Rao Borde and Smt. Urvashi Phuljhale and the private
respondents was held on various occasions. It was informed to the
private respondents that the said hospital would be a 50 bedded hospital
and every month, there would be a sale of Rs. 30,00,000/- worth of
medicine and they would be earning a profit of minimum Rs. 10,00,000/-
per month. The petitioners herein lured the private respondents that if
they intend to open medical shop, they will have to deposit
Rs.45,00,000/- and the hospital would start functioning September. The
private respondents deposited a sum of Rs.5 Lacs on 28.08.2020, Rs.10
lacs on 16.09.2020, Rs.5 Lacs on 17.09.2020 and Rs.3 Lacs on
17.10.2020 with the petitioners. In this manner, a total of Rs.23 Lacs
was deposited by the private respondents with the petitioners. However,
the Hospital was opened lately in the month of November, 2020. After
opening of the medical shop, the private respondents came to know that
the said hospital was not a 50 bedded hospital but only 9 bedded
hospital and as such, the private respondents were cheated. Despite
getting the security amount of Rs.23 Lacs, the petitioners demanded
and pressurized for payment of a further sum of Rs. 22 Lacs. Later, a
registered agreement was entered into between the parties on
01.02.2021. When the private respondents demanded the licence for
running of the hospital from the petitioners, the petitioners firstly tried to
evade and later only gave the a copy of the receipt of the documents
submitted by them for obtaining the licence but not the copy of the
licence. At that point of time, the respondents came to know that the
petitioners did not had the requisite licence for running the hospital.
According to the private respondents, the petitioners misbehaved with
them and the medicines which were being sold their medical store, the
money was not being given to the private respondents and thus, the
private respondents were cheated by the petitioners by luring them to get
good incentive and profit from the Hospital but in fact they have been put
to loss.
7. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner-Dr. Pravin Rustam Rao Borde and Mr. B.P.Sharma, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner-Dr. Urvashi Phuljhale, submit that
bare perusal of the written report will make it clear that certain financial
transactions have taken place in respect of operation of medical store of
the Hospital known as New Raipur Hospital, Raipur. It has been said
that not only the hospital has been opened but also complainant has
been allowed to run medical store in the said hospital for considerable
period and the complainant has earned profit by running medical shop in
the said hospital as the agreement entered into with the hospital
authorities and not with the petitioners that in respect of sale of
medicines and instruments from medical shop, there will be profit
distribution among the person running the hospital and the person
running medical shop in the ratio of 60:40 respectively. It has also been
said that although under the Ayushman Scheme of the Government,
amount of medicine has been obtained by the Hospital directly but the
amount of medicines has not been paid which has come around Rs.60
Lakhs, as on April, 2022. It is further the allegation of the private
respondents that when they demanded the amount, she has been
threatened of involving her in criminal case and also filthy language has
been used against the complainant and her agents. They would draw the
attention of this Court to the statements of Dinesh Giri Goswami and
Praveen Rustom Borde recorded by the police agency to the effect that
ratio of profit to be adjusted between them in the ratio of 40:60 and the
complaint has been filed as there was dispute relating to accounts. Thus,
except in the statement of complainant or her agents, nowhere the
petitioners name has come in the record which make her liable for
prosecution of any offence much less for the offence under Section 420
of IPC and Section 4 of the Adhiniyam, 2010. Since on the basis of
statements recorded and documents placed on record by the
complainant and her witnesses, the Police authorities were not certain
that any offence much less the offence under Section 420 of IPC and
Section 4 of the Adhiniyam, 2010 has been made out, therefore, an
opinion was sought from the Deputy Director, Prosecution, by the City
Superintendent Police of Police Station DD Nagar, Raipur as to for
commission of which offence the investigation should proceed further. In
this regard a copy of letter dated 29.9.2023 of the Deputy Director
(Prosecution) forming part of the charge sheet is relevant in which
although hesitatingly the Assistant Prosecution Officer has stated about
the offence under Section 420 of IPC, but in categorical terms stated that
his opinion is not binding on the police authorities, and for registration of
offence and for further proceedings, the police authorities are free to take
the decision in their absolute discretion.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that Mr. Dinesh Giri Goswami
i.e. accused No. 1 in the impugned FIR, met and disclosed that he is a
local general medical practitioner and he has online registration under
Nursing Home Act acknowledgment with him i.e. temporary registration
of New Raipura Hospital, Raipur and temporary registration ID (Login
ID) TRAIP56126 dated 23.01.2017 and further permanent registration
ID process is in progress and now he wants to start a Multispecialty
Hospital at Mahadeo Ghat Road, Raipur. Therefore, he is in need of
specialist doctor. The petitioner-Dr. Pravin Rustam Rao Borde,
considering the need and request of Dinesh Giri Goswami, discussed
the terms and conditions of the work and salary and thereafter Dinesh
Giri Goswami also gave an offer to become partner in the above said
Multispecialty Hospital. Thereafter, the petitioner disclosed that, her wife
is also a Pathologist. In the meantime, Dinesh Giri Goswami offered
separate premises for lab and also proposed to make her partner in
Multispecialty Hospital. It was initially agreed by both the parties that
Dinesh Goswami will invest 51% and petitioner along with his wife will
invest, as a partner, of 49% share. Believing the words of the Dinesh Giri
Goswami, the petitioner and his wife formed a private limited company
named and styled as M/s Shivansh Borde Pvt. Ltd. Act having CIN No.
under the U8532OCT2020PTCO10566 and thereafter M/s Shivansh
Companies Borde Pvt. Ltd. and Dinesh Goswami meanwhile started M/s
New Raipura Hospital at Mahadeo Ghat Road, Raipur. The petitioner,
believing the words of the Dinesh Giri Goswami that he has temporary
license and requisite permission from competent authority in respect of
starting new hospital, started his works as doctor in the M/s New
Raipura Hospital, Raipur from 02.11.2020. Thereafter, Dinesh Giri
Goswami in the month of November 2020 disclosed that he has already
offered to respondents No. 2 & 3 for the purpose to start medical shop in
the premises of M/s New Raipura Hospital and to that effect Goswami
disclosed that, it is necessary to meet with respondents No. 2 & 3 for the
purpose to decide the terms and condition of the agreement. Therefore,
considering the direction of Dinesh Giri Goswami one meeting was held
in M/s New Raipura Hospital, Raipur. Thereafter Dinesh Giri Goswami
prepared partnership firm l.e. M/s New Raipura Hospital and to that
effect executed Deed of Partnership on 26.11.2020 at Bhilai and at the
first instance Dinesh Giri Goswami handed over a copy of online
registration Under Nursing Home Act Acknowledgment to the petitioner
as a temporary Registration of M/s New Raipura Hospital, Raipur. In
fact, thereafter Dinesh Giri Goswami told the petitioner that, he has met
with Vinita Jha and also discuss the terms and conditions in respect of
business of Medical Shop and also settled the draft of agreement and he
has given oral permission to Vinita Jha to start Medical Shop and
business in the premises of New Raipura Hospital, Raipur in the name of
Ishan sale, because Vinita Jha told to the Dinesh Giri Goswami that she
has obtained all necessary license and permissions from competent
authority to start medical shop. On the oral promise and permission of
Dinesh Giri Goswami, the relatives of Vinita Jha transferred only
Rs.23,00,000/- out of Rs.45,00,000/- in the bank account of New
Raipura Hospital, Raipur and prior to transferring the amount made a
specific condition that the petitioner and his partner firstly will hand over
blank Cheques of Post Dated to Vinita Jha. Subsequently, the petitioner
and Dinesh Giri Goswami handed over total 5 cheques (2 cheques by
Dinesh Giri Goswami and 3 cheques by the petitioner-Dr. Pravin Rustam
Rao Borde) as a security to Vinita Jha. According to Shrivastava,
Dinesh Giri Goswami has discussed and settled the terms and
conditions of agreement with Vineeta Jha. The petitioner again believing
the words of Dinesh Giri Goswami who has already executed partnership
deed with the petitioner and therefore considering the direction of Dinesh
Giri Goswami who has already prepared one "Ikrarnama" with Vinita Jha
and thereafter as per direction of Dinesh Giri Goswami, petitioner and
his wife made signature on said Ikrarnama" and the said "Ikrarnama"
was registered on 01.02.2021 in the office of Sub Registrar Office
Raipur. After the execution of the said agreement it is expected as per
terms and conditions of the agreement and assurance given by Vinita
Jha to deposit remaining amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- in the bank of
account of New Raipura Hospital by Vinita Jha, but in the month of
February 2021, Dinesh Giri Goswami and petitioner came to known that,
the Vinita Jha is now not in a mood to deposit the balance amount of
Rs.22,00,000/- Therefore, Dinesh Giri Goswami and petitioner
conducted meetings with Vinita Jha and other persons as per directions
of Vinita Jha and requested her to deposit balance amount of
Rs.22,00,000/- as per registered agreement but she was not in mood to
deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- and she gave evasive
replies to petitioner and Dinesh Giri Goswami. The complainant-Vinita
Jha did not deposit the balance amount of Rs.22,00,000/- as per above
mentioned registered agreement in the bank account of New Raipura
Hospital, and she was not even ready to disclose the purchase and sale
of medicines of the medical store at New Raipura Hospital. She also did
not give GST details to the petitioner and Dinesh Giri Goswami as per
decided in number of meetings by Vinita Jha and other persons. Thus,
Vinita Jha along with her relatives created a dispute with petitioner and
Dinesh Giri Goswami as commercial transactions of medicines were not
disclosed with them. Due to second wave of wide spread pandemic
Covid-19 period i.e. from month of March to June 2021, the entire New
Raipura Hospital was continuously functioning and medical store run by
complainants was still open. Vinita Jha even after number of request
neither deposited balance amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- nor provide any
details of purchase and sale and GST after starting medical shop i.e.
Ishan Sales, till this date. Due to personal family problem of the
petitioner, in the month of July 2022, he was not in position to reside in
Raipur and therefore in compelling circumstances he decided to left the
work and business of New Raipura Hospital. Therefore, petitioner
communicated the above said fact to Dinesh Giri Goswami. Thereafter
petitioner, personally on 01.08.2022, on letter head of New Raipura
Hospital in writing relinquished all his responsibility. Consequently, entire
responsibility was rested upon Dinesh Giri Goswami. The said original
letter was also submitted in the office of Bank of Baroda, branch Sundar
Nagar, Raipur. The petitioner told Vinita Jha about above mentioned fact
that he is leaving Raipur and he will also relinquish all his responsibility
of the New Raipura Hospital. Vinita Jha asked to sent all the facts
through e-mail to Ashish Tiwari and Mukesh Jha. Thus, the petitioner
sent mail to Ashish Tiwari and Mukesh Jha. Considering the above said
assurance even Vineeta Jha from July 2022 to September 2022 after
number oral request made by the Dinesh Giri Goswami and petitioner
neither deposited balance amount of Rs.22,00,000/- nor given any
details of purchase, sale and GST and also not given regular profit of
40% amount of profit to the petitioner and Dinesh Giri Goswami. Vinita
Jha with ill intention and ulterior motive started falsely alleging on
technical grounds for the purpose to avoid to deposit the said balance of
Rs.22,00,000/- and details of purchase and sale, GST and balance 40%
amount of profit and arrears of 40% amount of profit. Vineeta Jha also
filed a Civil Suit being No. 30-B/2022 for recovery of an amount of Rs.
74,44,223/- before learned District Court Raipur which is pending
consideration. The other offence for which petitioner is charge sheeted
is of Section 4 of the Adhiniyam, 2010 and the documents filed by the
prosecution itself suggest that on 31.8.2021 license has been issued to
New Raipur Hospital, Mahadev Ghat Road, Raipura. Thus, it is clear
that on making application at a prior point of time, copy of which has
been supplied to the complainant, the registration of Hospital with the
State authorities has taken place and license has been granted under
Section 3 of the Adhiniyam, 2010 and there is no question of being
unsuccessful in obtaining license. Therefore, the offence under Section 4
of the Adhiniyam, 2010 also cannot be held to be made which deals with
penalty for failure to obtain license.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the sole
intention of the complainant and her associates was to recover the
amount paid under the agreement and of obtaining ratio of profit which is
to be recovered or not paid by the hospital and regarding which the
witnesses themselves have stated that due to alleged irregularity in
financial transactions in between March-April 2021 to June 2022 or non-
payment of amount allegedly due and for not supply of statement of
accounts by the persons concerned, the disputes have arisen which
ought not to have been given a criminal shape particularly when the
remedy of filing civil suit is available to the complainant at the time of
initiation of criminal proceeding. No ingredient of Section 420 of the IPC
is made out in this case. In support of their contentions, learned counsel
for the petitioners place reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in
State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal {1992 Suppl (1) SCC 395} and submit
that these petitions be allowed.
10.On the other hand, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned State counsel submits
that the complaint made by the private respondents was duly
investigated by the police and after completion of the investigation,
charge sheet has been filed and the learned trial Court i.e. Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Raipur, has also taken cognizance of the matter
and the matter is pending consideration.
11.Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the private
respondents submit that they were lured by the petitioners with lucrative
benefits for opening a medical store in the Hospital owned and run by the
petitioners for which a heavy amount of Rs. 23 Lacs was got deposited
by the petitioners. However, neither the private respondents received
any returns as assured and on the contrary, the petitioners were not
having even the licence to run the hospital as such, they have been
cheated for which the police has rightly registered the FIR and
proceeded against them by filing the charge sheet and the learned trial
Court has rightly taken cognizance of the matter. As such, these
petitions deserve to be dismissed.
12.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings
and documents appended thereto.
13.From perusal of the pleadings and materials available on record, it
transpires that an agreement was entered into between the petitioners
and the private respondents with regard to opening of a medical store in
the Hospital for which certain deposits were made by the private
respondents with the petitioners. After sometime, it appears that dispute
has arisen between the parties with regard to sharing of the profit and
running of the medical store for which the private respondents have also
filed a civil suit being Civil Suit No. 30-B/2022. The entire dispute
between the parties appear to be civil in nature and when the expected
profit could not be earned, the same has given rise to the present case.
14.One of the accused namely Dinesh Giri Goswami is reported to have
expired on 09.12.2022.
15.The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is
well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-
sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and
Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of
cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or
the complaint even if 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, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in
exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C.
16.In Ram Jas v. State of Uttar Pradesh {(1970) 2 SCC 740}, the
Supreme Court has observed at paragraph 3 as under:
"3......Cheating is defined in section 415, I.P.C which is as
follows "Whoever, by deceiving- any person, fraudulently or
dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any
property to any person, or to consent that any person shall
retain any property, or intentionally induces, the person so
deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do
or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission
causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in
body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
The ingredients required to constitute the offence of cheating
are-
(i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a
person by deceiving him;
(ii) (a) The person so deceived should be induced to deliver
any property to any person, or to consent that any person
shall retain any property; or
(b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to
do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he
were not so deceived; and
(iii) In cases covered by (ii) (b), the act or omission should be
one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the
person induced in body, mind, reputation or property."
17.In the well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of
Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Apex Court held that those
guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare
cases. Guidelines are as follows:
"(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 to 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 156(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 every
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."
18.In the matter of Sarabjit v. State of Punjab, {(2023) 5 SCC 360}, it has
been observed by the Apex Court that a breach of contract does not give
rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest
intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the
allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate
criminal proceedings.
19.From perusal of the FIR in question, we do not find that the dispute
between the parties is of civil nature and related to agreement entered
into between them which can be very well decided by the competent
jurisdictional Civil Court for which the private respondents have already
filed a civil suit and as such, the registration of the FIR and the
consequential criminal proceedings does not appear to be justified.
20.In view of the above discussion, the FIR bearing Crime No. 0462/2023,
dated 12.10.2023, the final report No. 7/2025 dated 13.01.2025, filed by
the Police of Police Station, Deendayal Nagar, Raipur, for the offences
under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Rajya
Upcharya Grih Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Sthapnayein Anugyapan
Adhiniyam, 2010, the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, in Criminal Case No. 685/2025
and the consequential proceedings, so far it relates to the petitioners, are
quashed.
21.Resultantly, both these petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Amit
AMIT
KUMAR
DUBEY
