Dr. Praveen Prakash @ Yogi Ji v. Presence

Judgment

1. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 31 May 2018 and the summoning order dated 9 October 2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, in Criminal Case No 328 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No 210 of 2018 registered at Police Station Rishikesh for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The informant alleged that she and a group of eight persons were introduced to the Applicant through mutual acquaintances and were induced to undertake a spiritual pilgrimage tour to Gaumukh. It was stated that the Applicant assured complete arrangements, including travel, accommodation, and food. An amount of Two lakh Forty Thousand Rupees (₹2,40,000/-)was allegedly paid to the Applicant. Of Criminal Misc. Application No. 588 of 2019, Dr. Praveen Prakash @ Yogi Ji Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 1 Ashish Naithani J. this, one lakh ninety thousand rupees was transferred to the Applicant's bank account in four instalments, and the remaining amount was allegedly paid in cash at Rishikesh.

3. It was alleged that the Applicant failed to make adequate arrangements for the tour, did not accompany the group as promised, and ultimately abandoned them midway. When confronted, he is alleged to have misbehaved with the complainant and refused to return

the amount, resulting in the registration of a first information report.

4. The investigating officer recorded statements of the complainant and other individuals said to have been part of the group. Based on these statements and supporting materials, a charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate on 31.05. 2018, upon which the Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the Applicant to face trial.

5. It was submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the transaction between the parties was entirely consensual and falls within the realm of a civil dispute. The Applicant claimed to be a senior citizen formerly engaged in medical practice, who later turned towards spiritual service and has been operating a Gaushala, offering spiritual clarity coaching upon invitation.

6. According to the Applicant, the complainant initially approached him for spiritual guidance and clarity sessions, for which he charged a mutually agreed fee. It is submitted that during this engagement, the complainant expressed her desire to undertake a pilgrimage to Gaumukh and requested the Applicant to facilitate arrangements, taking into account his location in Uttarakhand and familiarity with the region.

7. It was contended that the Applicant had clearly informed the complainant that he was not a travel agent yet acceded to the request to Criminal Misc. Application No. 588 of 2019, Dr. Praveen Prakash @ Yogi Ji Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 2 Ashish Naithani J. assist with arrangements as a gesture of goodwill. Bookings were made for hotel rooms and vehicles and supporting receipts for the same were placed on record. The Applicant further claimed that he accompanied the group at the start of the journey but suffered a vehicle accident near Chamba, following which he was unable to continue with the trip.

8. It was asserted that Applicant made an effort to reconnect with the group after the accident but was mistreated and abused. He alleged that the group unilaterally cancelled the trip and refused to accept any refund of the balance amount after deducting expenses already incurred.

9. It was also argued the complaint is riddled with inconsistencies. Specifically, the informant has stated that Fifty Thousand Rupees (₹50,000) were paid in cash at Rishikesh, but has also mentioned denominations amounting to only Thirty Thousand Rupees(₹30,000). This contradiction, it was submitted, casts serious doubt on the bona fides of the allegations.

10. Regarding the alleged recovery of Fifty Thousand and Sixty Rupees(₹50,060) at the time of arrest, it was submitted that the arrest was itself illegal and that no recovery was made in accordance with law. The Applicant further alleged that the police acted in collusion with the complainant and used coercive methods, including custodial torture.

11. Reliance was placed on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal1992 AIR 604to argue that the present case falls within the illustrative categories where interference under Section 482 CrPC is warranted. It was contended that the complaint had been maliciously lodged to exert pressure upon the Applicant and that no offence under Section 420 of the IPC is made Criminal Misc. Application No. 588 of 2019, Dr. Praveen Prakash @ Yogi Ji Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 3 Ashish Naithani J. out since there was neither deception nor fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction.

12. Per contra, it was argued on behalf of the State that the allegations disclose a clear case of cheating and intentional insult. The Applicant is alleged to have portrayed himself as a spiritual guide, induced the group to pay a substantial amount for a tour under the pretext of a spiritual journey, and then failed to fulfil his promises.

13. It was submitted that statements of the complainant and other group members recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure support the version of the State. The charge sheet is said to have been filed after due investigation, and the material placed on record is sufficient to proceed to trial.

14. The learned counsel for the complainant/Private Respondent also submitted that the Applicant had projected himself as a yogi and spiritual figure with ties to the Himalayas and thereby won the trust of the group. It was only later that his conduct revealed a commercial motive and an unprofessional handling of the trip, including the cancellation of vehicles and the abandonment of the group without refund.

15. It was denied that there was any agreement for spiritual coaching or that the trip was a goodwill gesture. According to the complainant, the entire amount was paid in expectation of a guided spiritual tour, and the Applicant’s conduct amounted to inducement, misrepresentation, and subsequent criminal breach of trust.

16. It was further argued that the presence of disputed facts and conflicting versions calls for a full-fledged trial. The case, it was contended, does not warrant interference at this stage as it involves Criminal Misc. Application No. 588 of 2019, Dr. Praveen Prakash @ Yogi Ji Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 4 Ashish Naithani J. evidentiary appreciation and disputed questions of fact that fall outside the scope of jurisdiction under Section 482.

18. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are intended to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. However, such jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and with great caution, particularly in cases involving contested facts and allegations of fraud or criminal intent.

19. In the present case, the complainant alleges that the Applicant induced her and seven others to part with a substantial sum of money under the assurance that he would facilitate a guided spiritual tour to Gaumukh. The gravamen of the complaint is that despite receiving an amount of Two Lakh Forty Thousand Rupees (₹2,40,000/-), the Applicant neither fulfilled his assurances nor refunded the amount after the tour was aborted.

20. The Applicant, on the other hand, does not deny the monetary transactions but contends that they arose out of a prior spiritual engagement and mutual understanding, devoid of any contractual or commercial obligation. He attributes the disruption of the tour to an unforeseen vehicle accident and claims that the complainant’s group refused to accept a partial refund after deducting expenses already incurred.

21. The central issue is whether the allegations disclosed in the complaint and the charge sheet amount to a civil dispute or whether they disclose ingredients of a criminal offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is well settled that mere breach of contract or failure to perform a promise does not by itself constitute cheating Criminal Misc. Application No. 588 of 2019, Dr. Praveen Prakash @ Yogi Ji Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 5 Ashish Naithani J. unless it is shown that there was fraudulent or dishonest intention at the very inception of the transaction.

22. The complaint in the present case alleges that the Applicant, at the very outset, represented himself as capable of organizing a spiritual and logistical tour to Gaumukh and demanded full advance payment. The allegations in the complaint are supported by the statements of other group members recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Although the Applicant disputes these averments and offers an alternative narrative based on mutual trust and informal arrangements, the existence of conflicting versions on factual aspects warrants adjudication at trial rather than summary intervention under Section 482 CrPC.

23. In the present case, the Applicant has filed several documents, including messages and booking receipts. However, these documents do not conclusively displace the factual foundation of the complaint. On the contrary, many of them appear to reinforce the transactional nature of the engagement.

24. The Court also notes that during the investigation, a sum of Fifty Thousand and Sixty Rupees (₹50,060) was recovered from the Applicant, and this fact is mentioned in the recovery memo dated

16.05.2018. While the Applicant disputes the legality of the recovery, its evidentiary value is a matter for trial. At this stage, such evidence cannot be discarded or weighed conclusively one way or the other.

25. As regards the submission that the complaint is an abuse of process and motivated by personal grudge or vindictiveness, this Court is unable to accept such a conclusion solely on the basis of the Applicant’s version. The settled position in law is that the power to quash a charge sheet should not be exercised where the allegations, if taken on their face value, constitute the alleged offence. Criminal Misc. Application No. 588 of 2019, Dr. Praveen Prakash @ Yogi Ji Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 6 Ashish Naithani J.

26. It was contended on behalf of the Applicant complainant’s version suffers inconsistencies, particularly regarding the mode and quantum of cash allegedly paid. However, such minor discrepancies in accounting particulars, even if assumed, would not by themselves render the entire complaint false or vexatious, especially when the factual foundation of the transaction and the flow of money is broadly supported and not seriously controverted.

27. The nature of the allegations, the financial transaction involved, the timing and sequence of events, and the evidence collected during the investigation raise serious questions regarding inducement, trust, and accountability.

28. These questions cannot be answered without a full-fledged trial and examination of witnesses. The Applicant has not demonstrated that the material against him is patently absurd or inherently improbable so as to warrant summary termination of proceedings. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion and the well-settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for quashing of the charge sheet dated 31 May 2018 or the summoning order dated 9 October 2018 passed by the learned Magistrate in Criminal Case No 328 of 2018. The application is accordingly dismissed. Dated:25.06.2025 NR/ (Ashish Naithani J.) Criminal Misc. Application No. 588 of 2019, Dr. Praveen Prakash @ Yogi Ji Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr 7 Ashish Naithani J.