Uttarakhand High Court
Neelima Jain vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 26 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No.822 of 2018
(U/s 482 Cr.P.C.)
Neelima Jain ..... Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ....Respondents
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned senior counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned B.H. for the State.
Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
This application is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No.358 of 2018, State v. Manoj Jain and
others, pending in the Court of CJM, Haridwar.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the papers on record.
3. From the record, it appears that an FIR was
lodged on 20.01.2017 with P.S. SIDCUL, District
Haridwar against one Manoj Jain (applicant's husband).
It is alleged in the FIR that a Company 'Ultimate
Flexipack Limited' was running at SIDCUL, Haridwar
which was engaged in manufacturing of Polythylene Film
and Metallised Film. It is the only Company in India
which runs such type of business. It is stated in the FIR
that some important documents were handed over to Mr.
Manoj Jain, who was holding the post of D.G.M. in the
said Company. The allegation against him is that he
leaked the technique of the Film manufacturing to some
rival company.
4. From a perusal of the evidence collected during
investigation, it is prima facie clear that the accused
Manoj Jain who was the D.G.M. in the Company had
received some confidential documents regarding the
technique of manufacturing of the Polythylene Film and
Metallised Film, and he made available those documents
to some other rival Company, as also revealed the
technique without the permission of the Company.
5. Admittedly, the applicant is the wife of accused
Manoj Jain. Neither any document was received by her
nor she was the employee in the informant's Company
namely 'Ultimate Flexipack Limited'.
6. Even if any information was leaked by accused
Manoj Jain to his wife (present applicant), it was not the
mistake on the part of the present applicant for receiving
any information from her husband. There is no prima
facie evidence on record that the applicant handed over
any document to any rival company or leaked the
technique of preparation of Polythelyne & Metallised Film
qua Ultimate Flexipack Limited.
7. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal &
others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, have
considered, in detail, the provisions of Section 482
Cr.P.C., and the power of the High Court to quash
criminal proceedings or FIR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
summarized the legal position by laying the following
guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of
their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: -
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.
8. Considering the facts of the present case and
in light of the aforesaid judgment, I am of the view that
no 'prima facie' case is made out against the applicant.
9. Accordingly, the present application filed u/s
482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed. The same is thus,
allowed and the entire proceedings pending before the
Court below, qua the applicant, are quashed.
10. It is clarified that the Trial Court is free to
proceed with the trial regarding other accused without
being influenced by any of the observations made in the
body of this order.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
26.08.2021
Rdang
