Amardeep Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and others

arising out of FIR No. 0552 of 2024 dated 05.11.2024, registered under Sections 120-B, 201, 417 and 420 IPC at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, and to place the progress report of such investigation before this Court.

2. The Petitioner asserts that he is a lifelong member and Treasurer of Shri Gurunanak Shiksha Samiti, a registered society which manages Shri Guru Nanak Girls Inter College, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The society maintains its bank account with Canara Bank, Rudrapur Branch, bearing Account No. 2543101006995, wherein its funds are deposited and operated for institutional purposes. 1 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 391 OF 2025– Amardeep SinghVs State of Uttarakhandand others Ashish Naithani J.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that, during the period between

01.05.2021 and 01.12.2022, several withdrawals were made from the aforesaid society account through a series of cheques, allegedly in collusion by the then office bearers of the society and certain bank officials. The Petitioner states that the withdrawals were predominantly made through self-cheques rather than by issuing cheques in the names of the concerned payees, resulting, according to him, in unauthorised diversion of society funds, which came to light upon scrutiny of the bank statements.

4. Upon noticing the alleged irregularities, the Petitioner submitted a written complaint dated 18.08.2023 before the Station House Officer, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, with copies to the higher police authorities, narrating the alleged misappropriation of the funds of the society and requesting registration of a criminal case. No FIR was registered pursuant to the said complaint at that stage.

5. On the basis of the said complaint, an inquiry was conducted under the directions of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar, by the Superintendent of Police, Rudrapur, who recorded the statements of the Petitioner and the persons named, examined the relevant documents and submitted a report dated

26.07.2024. In the said report, certain withdrawals through various cheques and the extent of the alleged financial irregularities were noticed, while also observing limitations in the supporting material then produced, and it was indicated that the matter warranted appropriate examination through formal investigation. 2 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 391 OF 2025– Amardeep SinghVs State of Uttarakhandand others Ashish Naithani J.

6. Thereafter, the Petitioner moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, seeking a direction for registration of an FIR and for investigation into the alleged misappropriation. By order dated 24.10.2024, the learned Magistrate allowed the application and directed the Station House Officer, Kotwali Rudrapur, to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint and to undertake an investigation. It was further directed that, if the arrest of any accused were considered necessary, the Investigating Officer would ensure compliance with the provisions of Sections 41, 41A and 41B Cr.PC.

7. In compliance with the aforesaid order passed under Section 156(3) CrPC, FIR No. 0552 of 2024 came to be registered on

05.11.2024 at Police Station Rudrapur, under Sections 120B, 201, 417 and 420 IPC, against the persons named therein, in respect of the alleged embezzlement and diversion of the funds of Shri Gurunanak Shiksha Samiti.

8. The Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition filed on 24.04.2025, asserting that, despite registration of the FIR on 05.11.2024, the investigation has not culminated in submission of any police report within a reasonable period and alleging unexplained inaction on the part of the Investigating Agency. On this foundation, the Petitioner seeks the intervention of this Court for issuance of directions for expeditious, fair and effective investigation, along with a status or progress report to be placed before this Court. 3 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 391 OF 2025– Amardeep SinghVs State of Uttarakhandand others Ashish Naithani J.

9. Heard learned counsel for all parties and perused the record.

10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, despite a clear judicial direction under Section 156(3) CrPC dated 24.10.2024 and subsequent registration of FIR No. 0552 of 2024 on 05.11.2024, the investigation has remained stagnant and has not attained any meaningful progress. It is urged that the allegations pertain to repeated withdrawals from the society’s bank account through self- cheques over an extended period, allegedly in collusion between the then office bearers and bank officials. According to learned counsel, these withdrawals were neither approved by the governing body nor reflected in any legitimate expenditure of the society, and the pattern of transactions indicates a systematic misappropriation which requires prompt forensic scrutiny.

11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the delay is causing serious prejudice to the functioning of the institution, as essential financial records remain unverified, and the persons involved continue to influence witnesses and access relevant documents.

12. It is contended that the Petitioner seeks neither monitoring of the investigation nor any direction as to the manner in which the police should conduct it, but only prays that the statutory obligation of a fair, impartial and time-bound investigation be enforced, especially when the FIR itself was registered upon a judicial mandate.

13. Learned State Counsel, on instructions, submits that the investigation is not dormant and that several steps have already 4 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 391 OF 2025– Amardeep SinghVs State of Uttarakhandand others Ashish Naithani J. been initiated by the Investigating Officer, including calling for bank statements, issuing notices to relevant office bearers, and recording preliminary statements. It is submitted that the nature of the allegations, involving financial scrutiny of multiple transactions and authorisations, inherently requires time and careful verification.

14. Learned State Counsel contends that there is no deliberate inaction or laxity, and the Investigating Agency is proceeding in accordance with law. It is further argued that the scope of interference by this Court in a pending investigation is limited, and the Petitioner cannot seek judicial supervision or expediting of each step of the investigation.

15. Learned counsel appearing for the private Respondents adopts the submissions of the State and adds that the allegations made by the Petitioner are unfounded, exaggerated and motivated by internal disputes within the management. It is argued that the withdrawals in question were duly authorised, made for legitimate institutional purposes, and supported by corresponding expenditure records.

16. Learned counsel for the private Respondentssubmits that directing the police to proceed in a particular manner, or to complete the investigation within a rigid timeframe, may prejudice the rights of the accused persons and amount to undue pressure upon the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that the Petitioner cannot, under the guise of a writ petition, seek to convert the process into a parallel supervisory mechanism. 5 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 391 OF 2025– Amardeep SinghVs State of Uttarakhandand others Ashish Naithani J.

17. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is not in dispute that FIR No. 0552 of 2024 was registered on 05.11.2024 pursuant to the order of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, and that the allegations relate to withdrawals from the bank account of an educational society over a significant period. The record placed before this Court indicates that, during the pendency of the writ petition, the Investigating Officer has completed the investigation and has submitted the charge sheet before the competent court.

18. Once a charge sheet has been filed and the investigation has formally concluded in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, the grievance of delay or inaction in completing the investigation does not survive for adjudication in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The process now lies within the jurisdiction of the concerned trial court, which is competent to take steps in accordance with law upon the police report so submitted.

19. At the same time, this Court is mindful that the Petitioner had approached this Court seeking expeditious investigation of alleged financial irregularities involving the funds of a public educational institution. The completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet satisfies the limited relief sought. It is neither necessary nor appropriate for this Court, at this stage, to make any comment on the sufficiency, inadequacy, or correctness of the conclusions drawn by the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet.

20. It is well settled that, after submission of the charge-sheet, all issues relating to cognizance, sufficiency of material, summoning, 6 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 391 OF 2025– Amardeep SinghVs State of Uttarakhandand others Ashish Naithani J. framing of charges, discharge or further investigation lie within the province of the trial court under the statutory scheme. Interference by this Court in such matters is warranted only in exceptional circumstances, which are not made out in the present case.

21. In view of the fact that the investigation now stands concluded and the charge-sheet has been submitted, nothing further survives for consideration in the writ petition. The rights of the parties shall be governed entirely by the proceedings before the trial court, which shall act independently and uninfluenced by any observation contained herein. ORDER In view of the foregoing observations, and considering that the investigation in FIR No. 0552 of 2024 dated 05.11.2024, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, now stands concluded with submission of the charge sheet before the competent court, this Court is of the view that no further directions are required in the present writ petition. The trial court shall proceed in accordance with law on the police report so submitted, uninfluenced by any submission made or observation recorded in the present proceedings. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be urged before the trial court at the appropriate stage. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. (Ashish Naithani J.) 10.11.2025 Arti ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH 7 WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 391 OF 2025– Amardeep SinghVs State of Uttarakhandand others Ashish Naithani J.