Avinash Parihar and Another v. State of Uttarakhand others

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. 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 1 Ashish Naithani J.

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. 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 2 Ashish Naithani J.

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 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 3 Ashish Naithani J. 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 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 4 Ashish Naithani J. 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 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 5 Ashish Naithani J. 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 6 Ashish Naithani J.