Monish Mittal v. State of Uttarakhand and Anr

Judgment

1. The present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the Applicant, Monish Mittal, seeking quashing of Charge Sheet No. 01 dated

15.07.2023 and the cognizance order of even date passed by the learned 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Case No. 4454 of

The proceedings emanate from FIR No. 0060 of 2023 dated

23.02.2023, registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun, initially under Section 406 IPC and later invoking Sections 420 and 120-B IPC.

3. As per the allegations in the FIR lodged by Smt. Neha Mittal, the informant, claims that she, along with her husband, was running a firm in the name of TNS Solutions, which purchased mobile phones in bulk from M/s MDM Televentures Pvt. Ltd., a Realme distributor based in Gurgaon. Over a period of time, a cumulative sum of ₹8 crores was paid in advance for the supply of mobile phones. Criminal Misc. Application No. 499 of 2025, Monish Mittal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 1 Ashish Naithani J.

4. The informant alleged that despite the substantial advance, the material was not delivered, and after repeated reminders and visits to the company premises, she received only ₹3 crores back through RTGS. The remaining ₹5 crores were promised to be paid via cheque dated 24.11.2022, issued by MDM Televentures Pvt. Ltd. in favour of TNS Solutions. The cheque was dishonoured, prompting the informant to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the competent court at Karkardooma, Delhi.

5. It is stated that the Applicant was working as an accountant in MDM Televentures Pvt. Ltd. at the relevant time. During the course of investigation, the Applicant was arrested on 18.05.2023 and later released on bail vide order dated 21.05.2024 passed by this Court in Bail Application No. 1721 of 2023.

6. The charge sheet dated 15.07.2023, filed by the investigating officer under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B IPC, includes the name of the present Applicant, who is alleged to have played a part in the transaction by his employment as an accountant. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on the same date.

7. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant was merely an employee serving in the capacity of an accountant at MDM Televentures Pvt. Ltd. He had no decision-making authority, nor was he in a position to represent or bind the company in commercial dealings.

8. It is further contended that the Applicant was not named in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by the same complainant, which names only the Directors and Manager of MDM Televentures Pvt. Ltd. This, it is urged, demonstrates that the Applicant was not considered to have any independent role in the alleged transaction by the complainant herself. Criminal Misc. Application No. 499 of 2025, Monish Mittal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 2 Ashish Naithani J.

9. Learned Counsel contends that the case at hand, at its core, arises out of a commercial transaction and at best discloses a breach of contractual obligations. No dishonest inducement or fraudulent misappropriation is alleged against the Applicant.

10. It is urged that the charge sheet is silent as to any act or omission attributable specifically to the Applicant. The FIR and the entire case diary do not disclose that the Applicant ever interacted with the complainant, induced her to part with money, or derived any personal benefit from the transaction.There is no evidence of entrustment, dishonest intention, or conspiracy on his part. The continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

11. Learned State Counsel opposes the application and submits that the investigating officer, after examining the financial transactions and bank records, found sufficient material to submit the charge sheet against the Applicant along with others.

12. It is contended that the question of culpability cannot be determined at this stage and is a matter for trial. The Court, it is urged, should not exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to stifle a prosecution that is based on a duly filed police report.

14. Heard learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the records. It is well settled that the power to quash criminal proceedings at the stage of charge sheet must be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases where the allegations taken at face value do not constitute any offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. The jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, akin to Section 482 CrPC, does not envisage a meticulous evaluation of the evidence to ascertain the veracity or sufficiency of the prosecution's case. Criminal Misc. Application No. 499 of 2025, Monish Mittal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 3 Ashish Naithani J.

15. The material on record reflects that the Applicant was admittedly an employee of MDM Televentures Pvt. Ltd., which received an advance of ₹8 crores from the complainant's firm, TNS Solutions, for the supply of mobile phones. Despite repeated follow-ups, goods were not delivered, and only ₹3 crores were returned. The remaining amount was sought to be covered by a cheque that was dishonoured, prompting both civil and criminal remedies from the complainant. The investigation has led to the filing of a charge sheet against several persons, including the present Applicant, under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B IPC.

16. While the learned Counsel for the Applicant has emphasized his limited role as an accountant, it is not the function of this Court at the present stage to weigh the defence or to determine whether the material will ultimately result in conviction. The test is whether there is some material that connects the Applicant to the alleged offence, which would justify his prosecution.

17. The charge sheet and case diary reveal that the Applicant was involved in processing financial transactions and maintaining internal records of payments received and orders placed. His role may not be that of a principal decision-maker, but that does not ipso facto immunize him from liability where the allegations suggest complicity or facilitation. The question whether the Applicant knowingly participated in the alleged conspiracy or misappropriated funds entrusted to the company is a matter that must be tested by evidence at trial.

18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, [(2010) 9 SCC 368] held that at the stage of quashing, a detailed inquiry into the defence of the accused is impermissible. The charge sheet having been filed after due investigation, and a competent Magistrate has taken the Criminal Misc. Application No. 499 of 2025, Monish Mittal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 4 Ashish Naithani J. cognizance, there exists no glaring illegality or perversity warranting interference at this stage.

19. Furthermore, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335] outlines illustrative categories where quashing may be permissible. The present case does not fall within those narrow exceptions. The allegations disclose a prima facie case, and the Applicant’s role, though denied, cannot be conclusively excluded without trial.

20. The contention that the Applicant was not named in the complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act or was not the signatory of the dishonoured cheque does not by itself absolve him from potential liability under Sections 406, 420, or 120-B IPC, especially where conspiracy and entrustment are alleged against multiple individuals acting for and on behalf of a corporate entity.

21. In view of the above, this Court finds no compelling reason to interfere with the ongoing criminal proceedings. The issues raised by the Applicant pertain to the merits of the prosecution and the sufficiency of evidence, which are matters to be adjudicated by the Trial Court in accordance with law. ORDER In light of the foregoing discussion, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Ashish Naithani J.) Dated:29.07.2025 NR/ Criminal Misc. Application No. 499 of 2025, Monish Mittal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 5 Ashish Naithani J.