Dismissed

Mohd. Yunus v. CBI

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2023A482/2827/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment rejects an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. The court held that the power under Section 482 is extraordinary and should not interfere when the investigation reveals substantial involvement in a huge financial fraud offence.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking quashing of proceedings was rejected and dismissed.

Mohd. Yunus Vs CBI — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2827 of 2023 Applicant :- Mohd. Yunus Opposite Party :- Cbi Counsel for Applicant :- Shubham Dwivedi,Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav

¶3

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the accusedapplicant and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate and Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav for the C.B.I.

¶5

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of entire proceedings of Special Case No. 6 of 2020, arising out of F.I.R. No. RC2202018E0010 dated 27.12.2018, under Section 120-B I.P.C. read with Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station CBI/EOU-IV/EO-II, District Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), CBI Court No. 1, Ghaziabad as well as summoning order dated 16.12.2020 passed in the aforesaid special case.

¶6

A complaint for registration of F.I.R. and taking appropriate action against M/s. J.R. Foods and its proprietors, Nikhil Gaur and Nitin Gaur had been filed by Sri Pawan Kumar Gaur s/o Late Ram Avtar Sharma who was working as Regional Branch of Bank of India, Regional Officer, Begum Bridge Road, Opposite GIC, Meerut, alleging that the said firm i.e. M/s. J.R. Foods through its Proprietor, namely Nikhil Gaur along with the guarantor, namely, Ms. Sudesh Gaur, mother of Nikhil Gaur, had applied for Cash Credit limit of Rs.1500Lacs to the bank on 15.02.2017 and the bank sanctioned the Credit Facility of Rs.1500 Lacs to the said proprietorship firm on 22.03.2017. The

¶7

entire amount of Rs.1500 Lacs got siphoned off by Nikhil Gaur and his brother and it was channelized to various bogus concerns. The details of various concerns/companies/firms, in which the amounts from Rs.1500 Lacs was channelized has been given in detail in the charge sheet filed by the C.B.I. after investigating the offence. It is alleged that one of such concerns where the amount from the Cash Credit Limit was transferred was M/s. Gurumangla Trading Private Ltd. and M/s. Maxim Trading Private Ltd. under the proprietorship of co-accused Sudhir Kumar. Mr. Rajveer, Director of M/s. Gurumangala and Sudhir Kumar, Proprietor of Maximum Trading Private Ltd., could not be traced and it appears that they were fake persons in whose names these two concerns were constituted and money was transferred to be withdrawn by the Gaur's family. It is further alleged that Mobile No. 8368821741 was taken in the name of Sri Navneet Singh since December 2016 while Mobile No. 9599496311 was taken in the name of M/s. Companion Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. through present petitioner being Director of the said M/s. Companion Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.

¶8

The investigation had revealed that subsequent to the sanction of Credit Facilities to the tune of Rs.1500 Lacs, the said amount was siphoned off by Sri Nikhil Kumar Gaur; in criminal conspiracy with; Nitin Kumar Gaur, Director of M/s. Darshan Tradexim Private Limited, Sri Karandeep Singh, Proprietor of KAAYAN Overseas, the present accused-applicant and one Harish. A total amount of Rs.100 Lacs was transferred to M/s. A.S. Enterprises, Rs.176 Lacs to M/s Annapurna Trading, Rs.638 Lacs to M/s Darshan Tradexim Private Limited and Rs.528 Lacs was transferred to M/s KAAYAN Overseas. All the aforesaid amounts were transferred without any genuine business transactions of M/s. J.R. Foods with these concerns.

¶9

The C.B.I., in its investigation report, has also found that Nitin Kumar Gaur was one of the Directors of M/s. Darshan Tradexim Pvt. Ltd. and operating the bank account of M/s J.R. Foods, where the chunk of amount was transferred.

¶10

M/s. A.S. Enterprises and M/s Annapurna Trading Company were managed by the present accused-petitioner through dummy persons. The said firms were used by him for providing accommodation entries to various business entities for the purposes of increase turn over and capital. During investigation the present accused-petitioner and co-accused Harish were shown the cheques pertaining to M/s A.S. Enterprises and M/s. Annapurna Trading Company and they have identified the writings and signatures. In most of the concerned cheques, the body writing was by the present accused-petitioner while Harish has signed the cheques as Ashish and Vishvendra Singh, whose names were mentioned as Proprietors in the openning form of the account. The F.S.L. had confirmed the writings and signatures of the present-petitioner and Harish on the cheques.

¶11

Sri Garav Kakkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no iota of evidence against the petitioner to sustain the charge for offence under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He has submitted that for continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner there is no evidence to sustain the charge to enable the Court and this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may quash the proceedings.

¶12

On the other hand, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate and Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav for the C.B.I submitted that during the course of investigation the role played by the accused-petitioner has been

¶13

found to be that of the criminal conspiracy. He submits that the accused-petitioner was managing the accounts of two companies, namely, M/s. A.S. Enterprises and M/s Annapurna Trading Company and in the accounts of these concerns Rs. 176 Lacs and Rs.100 Lacs were transferred. The accused-petitioner used to write the cheques of these two concerns and co-accused Harish would sign these cheques as Ashish and Vishvendra Singh who were fake persons and were shown to be Proprietors of these two concerns. Further allegation against the accused is that he had used these two firms for providing accommodation entries to various entities for the purposes of increase turn over and capital which became basis for sanctioning such Cash Credit Limit in favour of the accused Nitin Kumar Gaur. He, therefore, submits that considering the allegations, evidence collected during the course of investigation, the involvement of the accused-petitioner writ large in committing the offence and, therefore, it is not a case to grant indulgence to the accusedpetitioner by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶14

I have considered the submissions. It is well settled that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and has to be exercised in exceptional circumstances. When the investigation would reveal that the accused-petitioner was involved with other co-accused for committing such a huge offence of financial fraud, question does not arise to interfere with the ongoing proceedings in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶15

I find this petition wholly misconceived and without merit, which is hereby rejected .

¶16

Order Date :- 25.1.2023 Arun K. Singh

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Yunus v. CBI

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Yunus v. CBI

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarun Aggarwal Vs Union Of India and 2 Others

Pramod Kumar @ Babloo Singh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Rai @ Rintu Rai Vs State of U.P.

Dr. Anand Swarup Vs Govt. of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Shahid Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.