Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 4963 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 17 October, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
      Criminal Misc. Application No.1861 of 2025
                        (U/s 528 Cr.P.C.)

Sanjeev Bansal
                                                         --Applicant
                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another
                                                     --Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Ramji Srivastava with Mr. Nikhil Singhal, learned counsel for
the applicant.
Ms. Rangoli Purohit, learned B.H. for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

In this C528 application, the challenge is to the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.3946 of 2025 (State v. Sanjeev Bansal) pending in the Court of CJM, Haridwar u/s 354 and 506 IPC with a further prayer of quashing the summoning order dated 23.08.2025.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is a law-abiding citizen and a resident of Haridwar. His daughter, Manavi Bansal, is the owner of a hotel operating under the name and style of 'Hotel La Olivia', situated near Shantikunj, Haridwar, Uttarakhand, which is managed by his daughters, Manavi Bansal and Aditi Bansal. Respondent No.2 was employed as a receptionist at the said hotel in the year 2022. She left her employment in March 2023 but was reappointed as a receptionist upon her own request. Subsequently, the hotel was leased out through a notarized lease deed dated 13.03.2024 to M/s Shri Ram Enterprises, represented by its partners Shri Sudhi Aggarwal, Nishchit Aren, and Alok Aren, residents of Najibabad, District Bijnor.

3. The Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondent no. 2 was earlier employed as a receptionist in the hotel "La Olivia", which is owned by the applicant's daughter and managed by both his daughters, Manavi Bansal and Aditi Bansal. He submits that during her tenure, respondent no. 2 is alleged to have committed financial embezzlement involving several lakhs of rupees. When the applicant's daughter attempted to lodge an FIR, the respondent no. 2, along with her father, requested that the matter be not reported to the police, assuring repayment of the misappropriated amount. Relying upon these assurances, the applicant and his daughter refrained from initiating criminal proceedings. Partial payments were made by the respondent no. 2 in February and March 2024 into the bank account of Aditi Bansal. However, the remaining balance was never paid.

4. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that after the hotel was leased to a third party, M/s Shri Ram Enterprises, who introduced their own staff, respondent no.2 was ousted from her position. He further submits that she allegedly sought reappointment and expressed her willingness to repay the remaining amount upon rejoining, but the new management declined to reinstate her, leading to her resentment. Subsequently, when the applicant approached the police to register an FIR against her, the police refused to lodge it. This led to the applicant filing a complaint on the CM Portal dated 21.07.2024, alleging that respondent no. 2 and one Amit Yadav - the lessee of another hotel owned by the applicant had taken undue advantage of their professional relationship and misappropriated an amount of .₹61 It was lakhs also byalleged gaining his confi that respondent no. 2 threatened the applicant with false criminal implication under Section 376 IPC if he demanded

the return of his money.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that pursuant to the complaint, an enquiry was conducted by Shri Vikram Singh Bisht on the directions of the SSP, Haridwar. The enquiry officer found that the dispute pertained to financial transactions between private parties and appeared to be civil in nature. He accordingly opined that the parties could seek redressal before a Civil Court. Thereafter, in what is alleged to be a retaliatory and malicious act, respondent no. 2 lodged FIR No. 793 of 2024 dated 18.09.2024 under Sections 354 and 506 IPC at P.S. Kotwali City, Haridwar. It was alleged therein that the applicant had outraged her modesty during her tenure, taken and misused her photographs, and made defamatory demands. However, the applicant contends that these allegations are entirely fabricated and concocted, made solely with an intention to harass and pressurize him, and to prevent him from pursuing recovery of the embezzled funds.

6. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 354 IPC as no act amounting to assault or use of criminal force with intent to outrage modesty has been attributed to the applicant. The FIR lacks any concrete description of gestures or actions as defined under Section 351 IPC, and no preparation or attempt to commit such acts has been established. Further, it was submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to recover any alleged photograph or digital evidence in support of the respondent's claims, and proceeded to file a chargesheet in a mechanical manner without proper investigation.

7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the entire criminal proceedings initiated by respondent no. 2 are a counterblast to the applicant's complaint and are an abuse of the process of law. The false allegations have been made with the sole intention of shielding herself from the legal consequences of the embezzlement committed by her and to defame and intimidate the applicant. The applicant, being a law-abiding citizen with no criminal antecedents, has been unnecessarily dragged into criminal litigation, and it was therefore urged that the impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings be quashed in the interest of justice.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance in the present matter after due application of judicial mind. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer, after conducting a proper investigation and recording the statements of relevant witnesses, submitted a charge-sheet finding sufficient material against the applicant. Upon perusal of the material available on record, including the FIR, witness statements, and the investigation report, the Magistrate found prima facie grounds to proceed against the applicant under Sections 354 and 506 IPC. It is therefore contended that the impugned order taking cognizance and summoning the applicant is well-reasoned and does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the FIR, charge-sheet and entire material available on record. Since, the offences lodged against the applicant are very serious in nature and prima- facie made out a case against the applicant, it is essential for the ends of justice that the applicant should be subjected to a proper trial. In a catena of judgments,

Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that High Court should be slow in interfering with the criminal proceedings, if prima-facie the case is made out against the applicant. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531, in its Para 12 has held as follows:-

"12. This court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts' powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised:

(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court; and

(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute."

10. Recently, in the case of Neeharika, Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that criminal case shall not be scuttled at the initial stage. Relevant sub- paras of Para 33 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder:-

"33.4) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the "rarest of rare cases" (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

33.5) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

33.6) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

33.15) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;

11. After keeping the above principle in mind, this Court is of the opinion that as prima-facie case is made out against the applicant and the charge-sheet has been submitted and the applicant was summoned after cognizance, this Court cannot enter into merits of the case at this stage. Veracity of the version of prosecution can only be proved during trial, after both the parties would adduce their respective evidences.

12. Accordingly, the C-528 application is dismissed.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 17.10.2025 Rdang