Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Rakesh Thapliyal, J
Rakesh Mehra – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application No. 135 of 2024|Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 159 of 2023
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings
Act Referred
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.41-A, S.82, S.83, S.482, S.2(q), S.303, S.32, S.205, S.273
Advocates Act, 1961: S.32
Goods and Service Tax Act
Headnote
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought the quashing of criminal proceedings and charge-sheets arising from a business dispute between firms. The initiating party was alleged to have failed to supply goods or provide necessary tax forms, while the complainant alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust. An accused person, declared a proclaimed offender and subject to a lookout circular due to non-appearance, filed for quashing through a power of attorney holder, claiming the matter was civil in nature.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the accused had absconded, failed to join investigations, and failed to appear before the trial court despite summons and warrants. The court determined that a petition filed through a power of attorney by an absconder is not maintainable under the law. Furthermore, the court held that criminal proceedings are not barred merely because a dispute has commercial or contractual origins, provided the complaint discloses a cognizable offence.
Issues: The main issues were whether a petition for quashing of criminal proceedings can be maintained by a power of attorney holder on behalf of a proclaimed offender, and whether the alleged business dispute was civil in nature, warranting the quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that appearance through a power of attorney holder is impermissible for an accused required to face trial, particularly when the accused has been declared a proclaimed offender and is evading the judicial process. Additionally, civil and criminal liabilities can coexist, and the court will not exercise inherent powers to quash proceedings when the FIR reveals the ingredients of a cognizable offence and sufficient material collected during investigation warrants trial.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: U.K. Uniyal, T.A. Khan, Mohd. Shafy, Pinky Anand
For the Respondents: Himanshu Sain, Rangoli Purohit, Raj Kishore Chaudhary
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consolidation of petitions and background of criminal proceedings against absconding accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. petitioner contention regarding civil nature of business disputes and lack of evidence. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. state/complainant submission on investigation findings and non-cooperation of the accused. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. arguments concerning maintainability of petitions filed via power of attorney and harassment. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 5. respondent counter-arguments on maintainability and trial procedures. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 6. courts analysis affirming non-maintainability of poa petitions and presence of prima facie evidence. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
1. Since the issue as raised in both the captioned matter are the same and identical are now being decided by the common judgment.
2. Both the matters captioned above arising out of First Information Report dated 07.06.2022 bearing FIR No. 0177 of 2022 for the offences punishable under sections 420 and 506 IPC in which petitioners have been summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under sections 420, 506 and 120B IPC.
3. Earlier both the two petitions were allowed by the Coordinate Bench by common judgment and order dated 05.08.2025, which was assailed by the complainant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 18.08.2025 set aside the judgment of this court and remit the matter to decide afresh after considering the rival contentions of the parties in the light of the charge-sheet and all issues were also left open to raise and interim orders were also revived.
4. In WPCRL No. 159 of 2023 initially the petitioners sought for quashing of FIR dated 07.06.2022 bearing FIR No. 0177 of 2022 but subsequently by way of an amendment the charge-sheet, cognizance order as well as the entire proceedings have been sought to be quashed.
5. So far as another petition i.e. C482 petition No. 135 of 2024 is concerned, in this case also entire proceeding arising out of the same FIR dated 07.06.2022 bearing FIR No. 0177 of 2022 is also sought to be quashed.
6. At this juncture it is relevant to mention here that the petitioners of WPCRL No. 159 of 2023 are the married daughters of the applicant of C482 No. 135 of 2024 namely Rakesh Mehra, who initially was implicated in the FIR but subsequently on completion of investigation all of them were chargesheeted and Trial Court summoned each of them to face the trial.
FACTUAL MATRIX
7. The applicant Rakesh Mehra who preferred C482 Application No. 135 of 2024 is the proprietor of the two firms namely “Shri Shivaji Global Export” and “Shiva Mahadev Overseas” and these two firms have business dealings with “Divya Pharmacy” and “Patanjali Ayurveda Limited” situated at Haridwar from 2007 to 2018. The firms owned by Rakesh Mehra are basically runs business of import and export of edible oils, apple juice, concentrate, pineapple juice, tomato sauce etc. etc. from abroad like China, Malaysia, USA, Morrocco, Argentina, Africa, Myanmar, Vietnam and Indonesia.
8. During the period of 2008 to 2018 “Divya Pharmacy” and “Divya Ayurveda Limited” raised certain demands of various products from the firm owned by Rakesh Mehra, however, in the year of 2017 a dispute was arise when despite making huge payment the firms owned by Rakesh Mehra have not supplied the material.
9. Due to the aforesaid dispute the complainant herein being a representative of the firms namely “Divya Pharmacy” and “Divya Ayurveda Limited” lodged a First Information Report on 07.06.2022 registered as FIR No. 177 of 2022 at P.S. Kankhal District Haridwar implicating Rakesh Mehra for the offences punishable under sections 420 and 506 IPC. After lodging the FIR the investigation was commenced, however, Rakesh Mehra never joined the investigation despite notices issued under sect
