Sri. Naresh Kumar R P vs The Sub Inspector Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 3429 Kant

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021          R
                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.3683 OF 2017

BETWEEN

SRI. NARESH KUMAR R.P.,
S/O SRI R.V. PANDU,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
CEO, M/S EDURAYS INDIA
NO.79, 2ND CROSS,
24TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR II PHASE
BENGALURU - 560 078.                      ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI MURTHY D.NAIK, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      THE SUB- INSPECTOR OF POLICE
      AND STATION HOUSE OFFICER
      J.P.NAGAR POLICE STATION,
      BENGALURU - 560 078
      REPRESENTED BY
      STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
      HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
      BENGALURU.

2.    SRI ASHOK LENIN
      DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
      GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
      MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND
      INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
      UNIQUE INDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY
      OF INDIA (UIDAI), REGIONAL OFFICE
      3RD FLOOR, SOUTH WING,
      KHANIJA BHAVAN, NO.49,
                                  2


     RACE COURSE ROAD
     BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                         ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1
    (PHYSICAL HEARING)
    SRI H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, ASG FOR R2 (PHYSICAL
    HEARING))

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE FIR NO.88/2017 DATED 06.04.2017 AT ANNEXURE-A
REGISTERED        BY   THE    J.P.   NAGAR    POLICE   STATION,
JAYANAGARA SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 465, 468, 469, 471, 420, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC WHICH IS
PENDING ON THE FILE OF XLIV ADDL.C.M.M., NRUPATHUNGA
ROAD, BANGALORE.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.09.2021, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT          THIS   DAY,   THE     COURT   MADE   THE
FOLLOWING :-

                              ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the

proceedings in FIR No.88/2017 registered on 6-04-2017 for

offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 469, 471, 420

120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition

are as follows:

The petitioner is Chief Executive Officer of M/s Edurays

India which is a company dealing with e-governance, skill

development, finance, education consultancy, manpower

consultancy, higher education and institutions and claims to

have expertise in Aadhaar enrolment. The petitioner enters

into a service provider agreement on 1st April 2015 with Utility

Forms Private Limited, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as

'Utility' for short) for providing services mentioned in the

contract. On 30th March 2016, the contract between the

petitioner and the Utility was extended for a further period of

two years.

3. It is the claim of the petitioner that the 2nd

respondent - Deputy Director, Unique Identification Authority

of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'UIDAI' for short) in the

Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology had

addressed a permission letter for on boarding Utility as

enrolment agency for UIDAI, particularly for the purpose of

carrying out enrolments for Aadhaar in Karnataka. In terms

of the agreement entered into between Utility and the

petitioner, it is the claim of the petitioner that he was

providing manpower resources to Utility such as enrolment

operators and supervisors. Certain guidelines are laid down

by the Circulars issued as to how UIDAI and the persons who

have entered into the contract with UIDAI should function.

4. Things standing thus, on 6-04-2017 an FIR came to

be registered on information dated 6-04-2016 for the various

offences mentioned (supra). Accused No.1 is the petitioner.

Accused No.2 is the one who entered into agreement with

UIDAI and accused No.3 is the representative of Utility. The

moment FIR is registered, the petitioner is before this Court

calling in question the registration of FIR.

5. Heard Sri Murthy.D.Naik, learned counsel appearing

for petitioner, Smt.Namitha Mahesh B.G, learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and

Sri H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of

India appearing for respondent No.2.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

contends that the petitioner functions strictly in terms of

what was agreed between the Utility and himself. He would

contend that there is no substance in the allegations made

particularly for the offence punishable under Section 420 of

IPC and would further contend that the kits which have been

alleged to have been supplied for free were never supplied for

free and would submit that the entire proceedings initiated

against the petitioner is opposed to process of law.

7. On the other hand, Sri.H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned

Assistant Solicitor General would vehemently refute the

submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and

submit that there is no substance in the contention. The

allegation against the petitioner is not only of cheating under

Section 420 of IPC but also under Sections 465, 468, 469,

471 and 120B of IPC. In terms of the scheme for

empanelment of enrolment of agency what was permitted to

the enrolment agency was to enter into an agreement with the

petitioner and the like, only for securing manpower and not to

sublet the job of issuance of Aadhaar card.

8. The action of enrolment agency in entering into a

sub-contract with the petitioner has led to grave threat to

national security as Aadhaar cards are recklessly issued to

many who are also from neighboring countries. Such instance

have emerged by the acts of the agencies like the petitioner.

Therefore, the learned counsel would contend that it is for the

petitioner to come out clean in the trial as the investigation

itself is not yet commenced in the case on hand.

9. Learned High Court Government Pleader Smt.

Namitha Mahesh B.G., appearing for the State, would also

refute the submissions with equal vehemence and brings to

light the illegal activities of the petitioner and contends that it

is a matter of trial, as investigation is yet to commence in the

case.

10. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submission made by the respective learned counsel for the

parties and perused the material on record.

11. Before embarking upon the journey of consideration

of the issue in the lis, I deem it appropriate to notice certain

statutory provisions under the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of

Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act,

2016.

"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--

(e) "Authority" means the Unique Identification Authority of India established under sub-section (1) of Section 11;

(g) "biometric information" means photograph, finger print, Iris scan, or such other biological attributes of an individual as may be specified by regulations;

(k) "demographic information" includes information relating to the name, date of birth, address and other relevant information of an individual, as may be specified by regulations for the purpose of issuing an Aadhaar number, but shall not include race, religion, caste, tribe, ethnicity, language, records of entitlement, income or medical history;

(l) "enrolling agency" means an agency appointed by the Authority or a Registrar, as the case may be, for collecting demographic and biometric information of individuals under this Act;

(m) "enrolment" means the process, as may be specified by regulations, to collect demographic and biometric information from individuals by

the enrolling agencies for the purpose of issuing Aadhaar numbers to such individuals under this Act;

(q) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made by the Central Government under this Act;

Section 2(e) defines Authority to mean the Unique

Identification Authority of India. Section 2(g) defines biometric

information to be a photograph, a fingerprint, iris scan or

such other biological attributes of an individual. Section 2(k)

defines demographic information to be the date of birth,

address and other relevant material of an individual.

Enrolling Agency is defined under Section 2(l) to be the

authority or a Registrar as the case would be, for collecting

what is obtaining in Sub-section (g) and (k) of Section 2,

biometric and demographic information. Enrolment is

defined under Section 2(m) to be a process for collection of

what is obtaining in Sections 2(g) and 2(k) for the purpose of

issuance of Aadhaar numbers to individuals. Section 2(q)

deals with prescription and would be as prescribed under the

Rules made by the Central Government.

"23. Powers and functions of Authority. -

(1) The Authority shall develop the policy, procedure and systems for issuing Aadhaar numbers to individuals and perform authentication thereof under this Act.

xx xx xx xx

3) The Authority may,--

(a) enter into Memorandum of Understanding or agreement, as the case may be, with the Central Government or State Governments or Union territories or other agencies for the purpose of performing any of the functions in relation to collecting, storing, securing or processing of information or delivery of Aadhaar numbers to individuals or performing authentication;

(b) by notification, appoint such number of Registrars, engage and authorise such agencies to collect, store, secure, process information or do authentication or perform such other functions in relation thereto, as may be necessary for the purposes of this Act.

(4) The Authority may engage such consultants, advisors and other persons as may be required for efficient discharge of its functions under this Act on such allowances or remuneration and terms and conditions as may be specified by contract."

39. Penalty for tampering with data in Central Identities Data Repository. - Whoever, not being authorised by the Authority, uses or tampers with the data in the Central Identities Data Repository or in any removable storage medium with the intent of modifying information relating to Aadhaar number holder or discovering any information thereof, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.

40. Penalty for unauthorized use by requesting entity or offline verification seeking entity. - Whoever,-

(a) being a requesting entity, uses the identity information of an individual in contravention of sub-section (2) of section 8, or

(b) being an offline verification - seeking entity, information of an individual in contravention of sub- section (2) of Section 8-A shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or, in the case of a company, with a fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both."

Section 23 of the Act deals with powers and functions of

the Authority and the Authority is empowered to

develop the policy, procedure and systems for issuing

Aadhaar numbers. Sub- Section (3) of Section 23 of the

Act, permits the Authority to enter into memorandum of

understanding or agreement in furtherance of functions

of delivery of Aadhaar numbers.

12. The Government has notified regulations

namely, Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations,

2016. Chapter V deals with appointment of Registrars,

Enrolling agencies and other service providers.

Regulation 21 deals with appointment of Registrars.

21(7) mandates that the Registrars shall not permit

subcontracting of enrolment functions by enrolling

agencies to third parties. The Registrars are only

permitted field level man power to be hired through

third parties, provided the Enrolling agencies would

furnish all details. Section 21(7), (8) and (9) read as

follows:

"21. Appointment of Registrars. - (1) Registrars shall be appointed by the Authority, through MOUs or agreements, [or terms of appointment/engagement] for enrolment and update of residents across the country, and could include entities which interact with residents in the usual course of implementation of their programmes. The eligible entities for appointment as registrars are State/ UT Governments, Central ministries and departments / agencies under them, Public Sector companies of Central / State Governments, [Scheduled banks] and regulated entities including National Securities Depository Limited, UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd, Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV) created by Central or State Government including CSC e-Governance services India Ltd.

Upon appointment, a Registrar code shall be assigned to each Registrar.

        xx          xx    xx
             (7)   Registrars   shall      not   permit    sub-

contracting of enrolment functions by enrolling agencies to third parties. Registrars may permit field level manpower to be hired through third parties provided the enrolling agencies furnishes details of the entities from which such manpower is sought to be hired.

(8) Registrars shall at all times abide by the Code of Conduct as specified in Schedule V of these regulations.

(9) Registrars shall adhere to the processes, policies and guidelines, checklists, forms and templates issued by the Authority from time to time and shall also ensure compliance by the enrolling agencies of such procedures, etc."

In furtherance of the aforesaid Act and the Regulations,

the Government of India introduced a Scheme for

empanelment of enrolment agencies and in furtherance of

undertaking demographic and biometric data collection for

UID enrolment. The scheme was notified by the Unique

Identification Authority (UIDAI). Applications were called from

eligible and interested candidates for empanelment. For this

purpose, one Utility Forms Private Limited was empanelled as

an enrolment agency in terms of the Scheme. The enrolment

agency for the purpose for which it is empanelled was entitled

to procure field level manpower. The scheme for empanelment

of enrolment agencies reads as follows:

"Though this scheme, UIDAI intends to empanel a mix of organizations to enroll residents from the entire spectrum of the Indian population and to ensure that the enrolment activities are rolled out in the remotest villages of India and to the marginalized section of society. This RFE invites applications from organizations for empanelment to undertake enrolment work.

The RFE is open to all eligible organizations (including Govt./Semi-Govt/Private/NGOs/Not- Profit/Microfinance Institutions), which are (1) registered and operating in India for the last three years and (ii) having an average annual turnover/grants-in-aid of at least INR 50 lac in case of NGOs/Not-for-Profit OR a Net Worth of at least INR 50 lac in case of Commercial

Organizations/PSUs/Govt. companies/Autonomous bodies, in each of the last three (3) financial years (2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16).

Sub-Contracting of Enrolment Work is not allowed for private/commercial Organizations/ PSUs/Govt.

Companies/Autonomous bodies. However, field level manpower such as enrolment operators and supervisors can be hired through third parties. E.As will be required to provide details of the companies from which they are going to hire this manpower to their Registrars before commencing enrolment operations. Government Organizations may choose to franchise enrolment work to CSCs/Local Government bodies."

(Emphasis added)

In terms of what was permitted under the Scheme was the

manpower such as enrolment operator and supervisor could

be hired by the third parties by the enrolment agency. What

enrolment agency did was to the contrary, sub-contract was

entered into with the petitioner for functions beyond what was

statutorily permitted and the scheme contemplated.

13. Utility Forms Private Limited was the one that was

empanelled as the enrolment agency. Utility Forms enters

into an agreement with the petitioner. The petitioner after

entering into an agreement opens up 'Namma Kendra' for the

purpose of enrolment of Aadhaar and issues a notice of option

titled as 'Namma Kendra' options. The options notified on

01.10.2016, by the petitioner reads as follows:

"Option 1

All online services like Domestic Money Transfer, Bill Payments, Recharge, Train, Flight and Bus tickets booking. Aadhaar card Printing, PAN Card, Passport, credit card, personal loan, home loan, insurance, online courses, Saralrozgar job cards, all deposits and withdrawals from Yes Bank login, fone paisa app, Online shopping, N Point services, credit card and home loan payments, visa services, Western Union Money Transfer.

Set Up: Minimum 10 X 15 ft place, laptop, internet, normal printer with scanner. Plastic card printer optional (we will print and deliver with nominal extra cost), thumb device POS Device.

(provided by us Rs.300 monthly rental ( 6 months rental in advance to be paid before installation separately).

Franchise fee: Rs.30,000/ Kendra fees plus Rs.5000/- deposit for Wallet. 10 Saral rozgar job cards worth Rs.1000 along with banner, posters, pamphlets, bill book, rubber stamps will be provided Free.

Option 2

Option 1 plus Aadhaar enrollments Set up: as per option 1 plus Aadhaar Kit (Five finger Bio metric device, Iris and Webcam).

Franchise fee: Rs.40,000/- Kendra fees plus Rs.5000/- deposit for Wallet.

Option 3 Option 1 plus nationalized Bank Kiosk like SBI/SBM/BOB.

Set Up: as per option 1 Franchise fee: Rs.50,000/- Kendra fees plus Rs.5000/- deposit for Wallet.

Option 4 Option 2 plus nationalized Bank Kiosk like SBI/SBM/BOB.

Set Up: as per option 2 Franchise fee: Rs.60,000/- Kendra fees plus Rs.5000/- deposit for Wallet.

Option 5 Option 4 with plastic card printer, 1000 Aadhaar preprinted plastic cards and complete Aadhaar kit (Five finger Biometric device, Iris and Webcam). Set Up: Minimum 10 X 15 ft place, laptop, internet, normal printer with scanner.

Franchise fee: Rs.1,85,000/- Kendra fees plus Rs.5000/- deposit for Wallet.

ADDITIONAL SERVICES IF REQUIRED WITH ADD ON FEES:

RATION CARD COUPON CENTER ENABLEMENT & ATM

The salient features for ATM set up installation are: • For sourcing the locations for ATM, we need only a space of 4 X 4ft or any other combination in the existing Shop, Store, Mall, cooperative bank, Society, Housing boards, Group Flats, Nammakendra outlet etc.,

• The photograph of the location along with the details of the geography is to be given for approval. The detail should mention the approx. population of the area, population of ATMs in that geography and our estimate of daily transactions from that space. (format will be provided once you accept the offer) • The electricity point you have to define in the shop but all the wiring and fitting will be done by us.

• The responsibility of managing the ATM, branding, security, cash management etc. will be done by us.

• Locations responsibility will be to ensure proper electricity at the location and the electricity bill will be borne by the location only. In case, the are is prone to power cuts, the UPS for the ATM will also be installed by The Reserve Bank of India.

• The approval will be purely on discretion of authorized company.

One time installation fees Rs.20,000/- You can earn the following Commission: Rs.2.50 commission for every banking transaction Rs.1.00 for every non banking transaction

Regards,

Sd/-

Namma Kendra Division Edurays India, Bangalore www.nammakedra.in www.eduraysindia.com."

In the light of the afore-extracted options given by the

petitioner, what becomes unmistakably clear is that, the

petitioner indulged in trade of free kits, which undoubtedly

would become an offence punishable under Section 420 of

IPC, as if it is seen that these options were given, it would be

only with an intention to cheat. Therefore, it is a matter of

trial that the petitioner should come out clean on justification

of the afore- extracted notice that was issued and the

collection of money that he has made under 5 options of

selling the Aadhaar kit to be sold ranging from 40,000

onwards to 1,85,000 and every Aadhaar card that was being

issued by Namma Kendra, a particular fee ranging from

Rs.100/- to Rs.200/- was collected.

14. It is when the official of UIDAI went as a civilian and

sought an aadhaar card from Namma Kendra, he gets to

know the nefarious activities of the petitioner in connivance

with the enrolment agency in selling aadhaar kits and

aadhaar cards. It is thereafter, a complaint was registered

against the enrolment agency and the petitioner on 6-04-2017

the complaint reads as follows:

"Sub: Filing of Criminal Complaint against M/s Edurays India.

Based on inputs available on their official website http://www.eduraysindia.com/ government projects html the undersigned in the guise of a commoner visited their office situated at #79, 2nd Cross, 24th Main, JP Nagar 2nd Phase, Bangalore- 560078, during December, 2016 and made enquiries about their business model for starting an Aadhaar Kendra. The support staff at the office had furnished different rates for different models where an entrepreneur was required to purchase an enrolment kits at costs ranking from Rs.70,000 to Rs.1,90,000/-. The details of the same was also procured from them through e-mail dated January 28th, 2017. The copies of the same is attached herewith. When enquired further the support staff also informed that as an entrepreneur we are free to collect money from public during Aadhaar enrolment.

A second visit to M/s Edurays India was made on 14-03-2017 and the Head of Operations, Shri V.A.Sadiq Ahamed, was asked to submit their empanelment credentials with UIDAI as "Enrolment Agency" as it was established that they were selling enroment kits and operating Aadhaar enrolment centers with the brand name "Namma Kendra". Shri Sadiq informed that "Edurays India" was not a UIDAI empanelled agency and that they were functioning with a tie-up with M/s Utility Forms Private Limited an enrolment agency under Registrar CSC e-Governance Limited.

When UIDAI team asked for the copies of the agreement between M/s Edurays and M/s Utility Forms, the same was supplied through e-mails dated 15th and 16th March 2017. Form the documents supplied it could be ascertained that the contract entered is only for Man Power and resource supply, however M/s Edurays in connivance with M/s Utility Forms Private Limited were involved in selling the kits and in the process sublettinig which is not allowed as per UIDAI norms. It is seen that Sri V.A.Sadiq Ahamed, along with his CEO Shri Naresh Kumar in connivance with M/s Utility forms private limited are involved in the above act. (Mr. Ajay Chaturvedi, Head UIDAI Services) Mumbai.

It is also found from their website that they have been working on project for issuing Aadhaaar Card for all districts of South India, UP, HP, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttarkand and Bihar.

The above facts clearly show that M/s Edurays India are misleading the public that they are authorized to sublet the enrolment process to individuals for a cost and collect money from the public, thereby causing immense harm to the public image of UIDAI and to the public at large. We bring it to your kind knowledge that such deliberate misdeeds of the Accused impedes the progress of Government of India schemes meant for the benefit of individuals. This act has not only violated various penal provisions of the IPC but has also belittled the mandate of the Aadhaar scheme, thereby maligning the Aadhaar scheme.

Hence, we request you to kindly register a criminal case based on the above facts and take necessary action invoking the provisions of Section 34, 120B,420,465,466, 469, 47 of Indian Penal Code amended from time to time or any other sections as may be deemed fit upon further investigation."

This becomes an FIR against the petitioner for offences

punishable under Section 465 of IPC which is for of forgery,

Section 468 of IPC for forgery for the purpose of cheating,

Section 469 of IPC for forgery for the purpose of harming

reputation, Section 471 using as genuine, a forged document,

Section 420 of IPC for cheating and Section 120B of IPC for

criminal conspiracy read with Section 34 of the IPC.

15. The act of collection of amount by the petitioner is

defended on the ground that there is no evidence to show that

the Aadhaar kits were delivered free to either enrolment

agency or to the petitioner. It is the justification that the

petitioner cannot work in vacuum. Therefore, it is a matter

where the trial has to be conducted for the petitioner or his

enrolment agency to come out clean in the issue.

16. The fact that the Project Director of UDI for the

Karnataka Region had indicated the name of the petitioner to

be the contact person or the State, in turn, will not lend any

support to the petitioner, as the name of the agency indicated

in the said document is Utility Forms Private Limited and not

Edurays which belongs to the petitioner. Mere mentioning the

name of the petitioner would not clothe him with the right to

do as he has done.

17. It is also germane to notice that by Office

Memorandum, Government of India, drawing attention

towards comprehensive guidelines issued by UIDAI,

communicated that it has come to its notice that surprise

visits of permanent enrolment centres have revealed that

many operators are charging money for Aadhaar enrolment

which is free of cost and some such violators had been

blacklisted under UIDAI are also indicated that in the wake of

rising cases of charging money for Aadhaar enrolment, zero

tolerance should be taken by the Government. The

communications read as follows :

"In the wake of rising cases of charging money for Aadhaar enrolment, it is hereby informed that for all such corruption cases, strict action with zero tolerance needs to be taken. As such, I am directed to highlight that if at any point of time, any operator or supervisor is found indulged in corrupt practices, an FIR should be immediately filed by the EA against such operator. If it is found that EA has not filed an FIR against such operator, this office shall file an FIR against CEO of the EA for abetting such corrupt practices. The Registrar will also be made a party in such FIR for improper monitoring.

2. In connection with a Court case, Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in its Order dated 19.06.2015 in the

case of S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14980/2014 has directed UIDAI to issue Aadhaar Cards in single name and not in two or three names by putttign 'urf' or 'alias' in between. In view of this operators may be suitably asked to avoid putting 'urf' or 'alias' in between the name at the time of enrolment and / or update.

3. Enrolment Operators also need to be asked to capture mobile number of the resident while enrolment. Strict action may be taken against the operators not capturing the mobile number in spite of resident giving his mobile number in the enrolment form.

4. During the data quality check of Aadhaar enrolment packets prior to Aadhaar generation, it has been noticed that many a times the photograph taken for enrolment is of poor quality which leads to rejection of such data packet and in this whole process, the resident is denied Aadhar number. All the enrolment operators are therefore required to be properly trained.

5. Above instructions may be adhered to by all Operators, agencies and registrars."

"Attention is invited towards comprehensive guidelines issued vide UIDAI Ro Delhi Office memorandum no.A-

22011/21/2015/UIDAI (RO Delhi) dated 1st December 2015. Surprise visits of Permanent Enrolment Centres have revealed that many operators / supervisors are charging money Rs.50-1000/- for Aadhaar enrolment, which is free of cost. These operators have already been blacklisted from UIDAI system. It is also noticed that many PECs are functioning

without uploading any details on QAMIS portal.

In this connection, I am directed to state that

• All the Permanent Enrolment Centres running under your EA/Registrar should mandatorily have a display board (bilingual) which should clearly state that Aadhaar enrolment is free of cost. These boards should also bear the address and telephone number of grievance handling officials of your Enrolment Agency. A sample for such a board/display is enclosed. If any of the PEC is found operating without these boards after a period of seven days of issue of this OM, action against such EA will be initiated by UIDAI RO Delhi.

• Consequent upon receiving of any complaint of charging money for Aadhaar enrolment, an FIR should immediately be filed by the Enrolment agency against such operator under intimation to UIDAI Regional Office Delhi. If it is found that the EA has not filed an FIR against such operator, this office shall file an FIR against the agency (EA) for abetting such corrupt practices. The Registrar will also be made a party for improper monitoring.

• All the EAs/Registrars should ensure that the details of all the PECs running under them should be

uploaded on QAMIS portal (http://qamis.uidai.gov.in/es/login.a spx) without any further delay.

After a grace period of seven days of issue of this OM, if any PEC is found operating in Delhi / MP / Rajasthan /Uttarakhan without uploading such details on QAMIS portal, the approval by UIDAI RO shall be reviewed.

Above instructions may be adhered to by all the EAs and Registrars.

Sd/-

Deputy Director."

It is in terms of these complaints received by the Government

a surprise check was made upon the petitioner's office M/s

Edurays Private Limited at J.P.Nagar, where employees were

engaged to do the business of Aadhaar enrolment against

cash payment.

18. Therefore, with the facts being so glaring and the

offence alleged against the petitioner having such

ramification, as issuance of Aadhaar card by such agencies

who are not empowered can also lead to distribution of such

cards against the interest of national security. It is prudent

for the Government of India or the State Government to have

a vigil on such instances of rising cases of frauds in Aadhaar

enrolment. Any further observation on the merit of the matter

would be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner in his

defence before the trial Court. The petitioner, in my

considered view has to face trial.

19. It is germane to notice the judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR

PRADESH1 wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:

"10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that there are very serious triable issues/ allegations which are required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e., a joint notarized affidavit of mamta Gupta - accused No.2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused No.2 - Ms. Mamta Gupta, Rs.25 lakhs was paid and the possession was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27-10-2010, the sale

Criminal Appeal No.787 of 2021 dd. 13.08.2021

consideration is stated to be Rs.25 lakhs and with no reference to payment of Rs.25 lakhs to Ms. Munni Devi and no reference to handing over the possession. However, in the joint notarized affidavit of the same date i.e., 27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs.35 lakhs out of which Rs.25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is a reference to transfer of possession to Accused No.2. Whether Rs.25 lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to establish during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said document and payment of Rs.25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarized affidavit dated 27- 10-2010. It is also required to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs.25 lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is reference to the payment of Rs.10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material collected during the investigation.

... ... ... ...

13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section

482 Cr.P.C. is unsustainable and the same deserved to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Now, the trial to be conducted and proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be confined to the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only and the trial Court to decide the case in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid and without being influenced by any of the observations made by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly allowed."

(emphasis supplied)

In a judgment, a little earlier to the one that is rendered

supra, the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MADHYA

PRADESH v. KUNWAR SINGH2 has held as follows:

"8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the respondent, we are of the view that the High Court has transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by enquiring into the merits of the

Criminal Appeal No.709 of 2021 dd. 30.07.2021

allegations at the present stage. The fact that the respondent was a signatory to the cheques is not in dispute This, in fact, has been adverted to in the judgment of the High Court.

The High Court has also noted that a person who is required to approve a financial proposal is duty bound to observe due care and responsibility. There are specific allegations in regard to the irregularities which have been committed in the course of the work of the 'Janani Mobility Express' under the National Rural Health Mission. At this stage, the High Court ought not to be scrutinizing the material in the manner in which the trial court would do in the course of the criminal trial after evidence is adduced. In do so, the High Court has exceeded the well-settled limits on the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. A detailed enquiry into the merits of the allegations was not warranted. The FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia, particularly, in a matter involving financial irregularities in the course of the administration of a public scheme. A final report has been submitted under Section 173 of CrPC. after investigation."

(emphasis supplied)

Therefore, in the light of the facts obtaining in the case at

hand and the judgments of the Apex Court, I do not find any

merit to entertain the Criminal Petition, as in my considered

view, it is a matter for trial.

20. Insofar as the judgments relied on by the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of STATE OF

ORISSA VS. DEBENDRA NATH PADHI reported in (2005)1

SCC 568, the said judgment would be in inapplicable to the

facts of the case at hand in view of the manifold

circumstances narrated hereinabove. The Apex Court

delineated the width of the powers of this Court under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. and under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India and held it to be unlimited where the Court would step

in to prevent abuse of the process or secure the ends of

justice within the parameters laid down in the case of

BAJANLAL. The case also lays down that this Court would

quash the proceedings only when the accused would file an

unimpeachable evidence of sterling quality and seek it to be

the basis of quashing. In my considered view, no such

document is placed, much less, an unimpeachable one, on

the other hand, there are plethora of circumstances for which

the petitioner will have to undergo trial. The same reason of

inapplicability goes with the judgment in the case of LALITA

KUMARI vs. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in

(2014) 2 SCC 1 as that is not the issue in the case at hand.

Therefore, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel

appearing for the Union of India would be applicable to the

facts of the case at hand and not the ones relied on by the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

21. The Criminal Petition, accordingly, stands

dismissed. It is made clear that any observations made

during the course of the order are to be treated to be confined

to the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. only and the

trial Court to decide the case in accordance with law, on its

own merit, on the basis of evidence to be lead and without

being influenced by any of the observations made in this

order.

In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2021 does

not survive for consideration. Accordingly, stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkp