Uttarakhand High Court
Avinash Parihar And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 22 July, 2025
2025:UHC:6577
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION No. 711 of 2021
Avinash Parihar and Another ......Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others .....Respondents
with
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION No. 541 of 2020
Ratish Sood ......Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .....Respondents
Presence:
Mr. M.C. Pant, Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the Applicants.
Mr.N. S. Kanyal, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. These two Criminal Miscellaneous Applications under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been filed by the Applicants,
Ratish Sood and Avinash Parihar, seeking quashing of the proceedings
arising out of: (i) the First Information Report dated 29.05.2018, registered
as Case Crime No. 08 of 2018 under Sections 420, 504, and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sonprayag, District Rudraprayag; (ii)
Charge-Sheet No. 12/18 dated 08.12.2018; and (iii) the summoning order
dated 24.02.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ukhimath,
District Rudraprayag, in Criminal Case No. 11 of 2020, titled State vs.
Rahul Khajuria & Others.
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 711 of 2021-----Avinash Parihar and Another vs State of Uttarakhand &
others alongwith Criminal Misc. Application No. 541 of 2020-----Ratish Sood vs State of Uttarakhand &
others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6577
2. Since both applications arise from the same First Information Report and
involve identical factual and legal issues, they are being disposed of by
this common judgment.
3. The genesis of the State lies in an FIR lodged by respondent no.4, Vikas
Tiwari, on 29.05.2018, alleging that he had booked helicopter tickets for
himself and eight family members through Gaylord Travel Agency for
travel from Sitapur to Kedarnath on 16.05.2018 and return on 17.05.2018.
4. It was alleged that despite payment of a substantial amount of Rs. 90,000/-
, the services were not adequately provided, and he was subjected to
deception and threats by the employees of Global Vectra Helicopter
Limited.
5. Initially, two employees, namely Avinash Parihar and Rahul Khajuria,
were named in the FIR. During investigation, the names of Ratish Sood,
another employee of the said company, were also added to the charge-
sheet.
6. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet under Section 420 IPC
against the accused persons, and the learned Magistrate took cognizance
and issued the impugned summoning order.
7. Learned counsel for the Applicants argued that the FIR and the charge-
sheet are a gross abuse of the process of law, contending that the
Applicants are innocent employees who had no role in the alleged
transaction.
8. It was submitted that in the case of Applicant Ratish Sood, his name does
not even appear in the initial FIR, thereby casting doubt on the propriety
of his subsequent implication. Counsel further pointed out the unexplained
delay of thirteen days in lodging the FIR, which undermines the credibility
of the State's case.
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 711 of 2021-----Avinash Parihar and Another vs State of Uttarakhand &
others alongwith Criminal Misc. Application No. 541 of 2020-----Ratish Sood vs State of Uttarakhand &
others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6577
9. It was emphasized that the complainant and his family successfully
availed the helicopter service as scheduled, as evidenced by the travel
records and tickets, indicating that the grievance is not of criminal
wrongdoing but, at best, of a civil nature relating to booking or payment
disputes that have been given a criminal colour.
10. It was further contended that the essential ingredients of the offence of
cheating under Section 420 IPC are not made out in the present case, as
there was no fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the
transaction.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the State, supported by the counsel for
the complainant, opposed the applications, contending that there is
sufficient material on record to proceed against the Applicants. It is
submitted that during investigation, statements of witnesses including
Sudhir Kumar, Pawan Rana, and C.O. Abhaya Kumar Singh corroborated
the allegations in the FIR, which led to the filing of the charge-sheet.
12. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate, after due application
of mind to the case diary, found prima facie material to summon the
accused.
13. It is emphasized that the power under Section 482 CrPC should be
exercised sparingly and not to stifle legitimate prosecution at the
threshold, as held in several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
14. At the outset, it is well settled that the jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly, to prevent abuse of the process of law
or to secure the ends of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) has laid down
illustrative categories where interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would
be justified, including cases where the allegations do not disclose the
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 711 of 2021-----Avinash Parihar and Another vs State of Uttarakhand &
others alongwith Criminal Misc. Application No. 541 of 2020-----Ratish Sood vs State of Uttarakhand &
others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6577
commission of any offence or where the prosecution is manifestly
attended with mala fides.
15. In the present case, the essential ingredients of cheating under Section
420 IPC require (i) deception of a person, (ii) fraudulent or dishonest
inducement at the inception of the transaction, and (iii) delivery of
property or the doing or omitting to do any act by the person deceived as a
result of such inducement.
16. On a plain reading of the FIR, it appears that the complainant and his
family actually undertook the helicopter journey from Sitapur to
Kedarnath and back on the scheduled dates. This is corroborated by the
tickets annexed with the application.
17. Thus, the primary grievance of the complainant appears to be
dissatisfaction with the transaction or alleged overcharging, which is
essentially a civil matter. There is no specific averment in the FIR
regarding any fraudulent intention on the part of the Applicants at the
inception of the transaction.
18. The principal allegation is that the travel agent, Gaylord Travel Agency,
was not authorized by Global Vectra Helicorp Ltd. However, the
Applicants are neither shown to have appointed nor authorized the said
agent, nor is there any material to suggest that they had dealings with it.
The only established fact is that they were employees of the helicopter
company. Moreover, the employer itself proactively informed the
authorities regarding the unauthorized ticketing, which negates any
inference of a joint scheme or conspiracy.
19. Further, the First Information Report was lodged after a delay of 13
days from the date of the alleged incident, and no plausible explanation
has been provided for this delay. The materials on record indicate that
Ratish Sood was implicated not based on any specific act, inducement, or
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 711 of 2021-----Avinash Parihar and Another vs State of Uttarakhand &
others alongwith Criminal Misc. Application No. 541 of 2020-----Ratish Sood vs State of Uttarakhand &
others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6577
role attributed to him at the time of the incident, but solely on the basis of
statements made subsequently.
20. Insofar as Avinash Parihar and Rahul Khajuria are concerned, apart
from the fact that they were employees of the helicopter company, there is
no material to suggest that they dishonestly induced the complainant or
were party to any criminal conspiracy.
21. This Court is mindful of the principle that disputed facts are ordinarily
to be adjudicated during trial. However, where the uncontroverted
allegations and the material collected by the investigating agency, even if
accepted in entirety, do not disclose the commission of the alleged offence,
allowing the State to continue would amount to abuse of process.
22. In the considered view of this Court, the allegations against the
Applicants, taken at their face value, fail to constitute the offence under
Section 420 IPC or any other penal provision. Permitting the criminal
prosecution to continue in such circumstances would serve no purpose
other than harassment of the Applicants.
23. For the reasons recorded above, this Court is satisfied that the present
case squarely falls within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra)
for quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
ORDER
Accordingly, both the Criminal Misc. Applications are allowed. The
FIR dated 29.05.2018, registered as Case Crime No. 08 of 2018 under
Sections 420, 504, 506 of the IPC, at Police Station Sonprayag, District
Rudraprayag, charge-sheet no. 12/18 dated 08.12.2018, and the
summoning order dated 24.02.2020 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Ukhimath, District Rudraprayag in Criminal Case No. 11 of
Criminal Misc. Application No. 711 of 2021-----Avinash Parihar and Another vs State of Uttarakhand &
others alongwith Criminal Misc. Application No. 541 of 2020-----Ratish Sood vs State of Uttarakhand &
others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6577
2020 titled "State vs. Rahul Khajuria & Others," insofar as they relate to
the Applicants herein, are hereby quashed.
No order as to costs.
Ashish Naithani, J.
Dated: 22.07.2025
NR/
Criminal Misc. Application No. 711 of 2021-----Avinash Parihar and Another vs State of Uttarakhand &
others alongwith Criminal Misc. Application No. 541 of 2020-----Ratish Sood vs State of Uttarakhand &
others
Ashish Naithani J.
