C528/601/2026
2026 Latest Caselaw 2899 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

C528/601/2026 on 9 April, 2026

               Office Notes,
            reports, orders or
             proceedings or
No   Date                                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
              directions and
            Registrar's order
             with Signatures
                                 C528 No.601 of 2026
                                 Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Prasanna Karnatak, Advocate for the applicant.

Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

2. According to the applicant, she was employed with a company namely RIL Media Broadcasting. An F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no. 2 alleging that he had been induced by the said company to invest an amount of ₹2,97,50,000/- on different dates, out of which a sum of ₹17,94,718/- was returned to him on various occasions, while the remaining amount of ₹1,79,55,282/- was not repaid.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was merely an employee of the said company and had tendered her resignation during the COVID-19 pandemic, which came to be accepted on 31.03.2021. Thereafter, she was employed with Bhanzu Pvt. Ltd. from December, 2022 to May, 2025, and subsequently worked with ERU Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd. from May, 2025 to October, 2025. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the aforesaid amount had been credited into the bank accounts of certain persons, namely, Prasun Kumar, Ravi Pradhan and Sujaina Shukla, and no part of the said amount was ever deposited in the bank account of the present applicant.

4. On the aforesaid basis, it is contended that the applicant had no role whatsoever in the alleged transaction and has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that charges have been framed against the applicant under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code; however, both the offences, being distinct and mutually inconsistent in their essential ingredients, cannot be made to co-exist on the same set of allegations. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arshad Neyaz Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand & another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058.

5. Issue notice to the respondent no.2, returnable at an early date.

6. List the matter after receipt of the service report.

7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that, till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Criminal Case No.7141 of 2024, pending before the Court of learned First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, shall remain stayed.

(Alok Mahra, J.) 09.04.2026 Arpan