A.V. Prem Nath and another v. State of Uttarakhand and Others

has been filed by the Applicants seeking quashing of FIR No. 03 of 2021 dated

01.06.2021 registered at Police Station Vigilance Establishment, Sector Nainital, Haldwani, under Sections 420, 468, 469, 471, 120-B, 153-A IPC and Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act, along with the charge-sheet dated 04.01.2024 and the cognizance and summoning order dated

25.01.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora in Criminal Case No. 96 of 2024.

2. The case emanates from allegations that a complaint was lodged against a judicial officer by using fabricated electronic credentials and a false digital identity, and that the Applicants, in conspiracy with other accused persons, were involved in the creation and use of forged electronic material with the intent to mislead authorities and malign a judicial functionary. Based Criminal Misc. Application No. 1227 of 2024, “A.V. Prem Nath and anotherVs state of Uttarakhand and Others” 1 Ashish Naithani J. on such allegations, the FIR was registered, an investigation was undertaken, and charge-sheet was submitted.

3. The Applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court primarily contending that the Vigilance Establishment of the State of Uttarakhand lacked jurisdiction; that Applicant No. 1 being a senior officer of the Government of India could not have been proceeded against without prior approval or sanction; that the prosecution is actuated by malafides, and; that the charge-sheet does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants assailed the impugned proceedings, contending that the prosecution is wholly misconceived and amounts to an abuse of the criminal process. It was submitted that the Vigilance Establishment of the State of Uttarakhand lacks jurisdiction, as no offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act or misuse of official position by a State Government servant is alleged, rendering the registration of the FIR vitiated.

6. It was further urged that Applicant No. 1, being a senior officer of the Government of India, could not be proceeded against in the absence of prior approval or sanction from the competent authority. According to learned Senior Counsel, the alleged acts are inseparable from the official status of the Applicant, and the absence of sanction strikes at the root of the cognizance taken.

7. Learned Senior Counsel also contended that the proceedings stem from an administrative vigilance mechanism and that the preliminary enquiry conducted prior to registration of the FIR was unauthorised. It was further submitted that the allegations relating to electronic forgery and digital identity are vague, non specific, and fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged.

8. Emphasis was also placed on mala fides, with a plea that the Applicants have been selectively targeted and that continuation of the Criminal Misc. Application No. 1227 of 2024, “A.V. Prem Nath and anotherVs state of Uttarakhand and Others” 2 Ashish Naithani J. proceedings would cause undue harassment, warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC.

9. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State submitted that the FIR discloses serious cognizable offences involving forged electronic credentials and false digital identity, affecting institutional integrity. It was contended that the investigation has been conducted in accordance with the law and has resulted in a charge sheet supported by witness statements and electronic evidence, the sufficiency of which cannot be examined at this stage.

10. Learned Deputy Advocate General further submitted that objections regarding jurisdiction, sanction, or alleged mala fides raise disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, particularly when cognizance has been taken by a competent court.At this juncture, before examining the individual grounds urged by the Applicants, this Court considers it necessary to reiterate the settled contours within which the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required to operate. The power preserved under Section 482 is neither an appellate jurisdiction nor a substitute for trial. It is an extraordinary and residual jurisdiction intended to prevent manifest abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice in situations where allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would itself result in palpable injustice.

11. Once an FIR discloses cognizable offences and the investigation has culminated in the submission of a police report, followed by the competent taking cognizance, threshold interference becomes correspondingly higher. At this stage, the Court does not sit in appeal over the investigative conclusions, nor is it required to weigh the probative value of the material collected. The inquiry is limited to examining whether the allegations, even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, fail to disclose the commission of any offence or are so absurd, inherently improbable, or legally untenable that no prudent person could conclude that a case is made out. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1227 of 2024, “A.V. Prem Nath and anotherVs state of Uttarakhand and Others” 3 Ashish Naithani J.

12. In the present case, the gravamen of the allegations pertains to the creation and use of electronic credentials, false digital identity, and forged electronic material, allegedly in a concerted manner, with the object of misleading authorities and maligning a judicial functionary. The charge-sheet reflects that the investigation has relied upon electronic devices, technical examination, and witness statements. Whether such material ultimately inspires confidence or withstands scrutiny is a matter which squarely falls within the domain of the trial court and cannot be prejudged in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

13. A significant part of the Applicants’ challenge is founded upon objections relating to the jurisdiction and competence of the Vigilance Establishment. Such objections cannot be examined in isolation or in the abstract. Even assuming arguendo that the Vigilance Establishment was not the most appropriate agency to undertake the investigation, such an objection, in the absence of any statutory bar or demonstrable prejudice to the Applicants, does not render the investigation void ab initio once cognizance has been taken by a court of competent jurisdiction. The legality or propriety of investigation by a particular agency does not, by itself, furnish an automatic ground for quashing the proceedings at this stage. Any alleged irregularity in investigation, unless it goes to the very root of jurisdiction and demonstrably results in failure of justice, is ordinarily a matter to be examined during trial.

14. The contention regarding the absence of prior approval or sanction also merits careful consideration. The protection afforded to public servants under the Code is intended to shield the honest discharge of official duties and not to provide an umbrella for acts which are alleged to be criminal in nature. The allegations in the present case, which pertain to the creation and use of forged electronic credentials and a false digital identity, do not, on their face, arise out of any act performed in the discharge of official duty so as to attract an absolute bar at the threshold. Whether an act bears a reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duty depends upon the nature of the act complained of, the Criminal Misc. Application No. 1227 of 2024, “A.V. Prem Nath and anotherVs state of Uttarakhand and Others” 4 Ashish Naithani J. context in which it is alleged to have been committed, and the attendant facts, which ordinarily emerge during evidence. At this stage, the Court cannot conclusively determine whether the statutory protection is attracted, and such a determination is better left to be considered at the appropriate stage before the trial court.

15. This Court also finds no merit in the submission that cognizance is vitiated merely on the ground that the proceedings did not emanate from any formal administrative approval or internal noting. Criminal courts derive jurisdiction from statute and not from executive endorsements. Where the allegations, on their face, disclose acts alleged to constitute criminal offences, the absence of administrative approval or internal correspondence does not, by itself, render the assumption of jurisdiction illegal. Whether the acts complained of are ultimately established or whether statutory protection intervenes are matters which lie beyond the limited scrutiny permissible under Section 482 CrPC.

16. The plea of mala fides, though earnestly urged, does not advance the Applicants’ case at this stage. Allegations of mala fides must be demonstrable from the record itself and not rest merely on assertion or inference. Once the investigation has yielded material which forms the basis of a police report and cognizance has been taken, the Court would be slow to interdict the proceedings solely on the ground of alleged ulterior motive, unless the proceedings are shown to be manifestly malicious on their face.

17. The order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate reflects due application of mind to the police report and the material placed along with it. At the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is required only to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists. A detailed evaluation of the defence, jurisdictional objections, or the ultimate sustainability of the prosecution is beyond the scope of that stage and equally beyond the scope of the present proceedings. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1227 of 2024, “A.V. Prem Nath and anotherVs state of Uttarakhand and Others” 5 Ashish Naithani J.

18. This Court remains conscious of the principle that criminal law should not be permitted to degenerate into an instrument of harassment. At the same time, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not intended to short- circuit legitimate prosecution or to provide a forum for advance adjudication of defences. The grounds urged by the Applicants raise issues which are more appropriately examined by the trial court in accordance with the law.

19. In the considered view of this Court, the present case does not disclose such exceptional or extraordinary circumstances as would justify the exercise of inherent jurisdiction to terminate the proceedings at the threshold. Interference at this stage would amount to preempting a trial in a matter where the allegations require an evidentiary assessment. ORDER For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that no ground is made out for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The allegations contained in the FIR, read with the material collected during the investigation and reflected in the charge sheet, cannot be said to be so patently absurd, inherently improbable, or legally untenable as to warrant quashing of the proceedings at the threshold. The cognizance taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity or manifest illegality warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its inherent powers. Interdiction of the criminal proceedings at this stage would amount to pre-empting a trial in a matter where the allegations require evidentiary evaluation. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. (Ashish Naithani J.)

11.12.2025 SB Criminal Misc. Application No. 1227 of 2024, “A.V. Prem Nath and anotherVs state of Uttarakhand and Others” 6 Ashish Naithani J.