Chandra Kant Khemka Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

Chandra Kant Khemka Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application disposed of: prayer to quash the criminal proceedings and summoning order not entertained; however, the applicant is protected from arrest for 30 days, within which he must appear before the trial court through counsel and apply for bail, the bail application to be disposed of in accordance with the principles in Siddharth, Satender Kumar Antil and Aman Preet Singh.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 2147/IX/2017 (State Versus Anil Ghai and another), arising out of charge-sheet in Case Crime No.129 of 1999, P.S. Vrindavan, District Mathura, including the summoning order dated 23.03.2017 passed by C.J.M. Mathura under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court does not find it to be a fit case to entertain the quashing application, as the matter pertains to financial fraud and duping the informant of his money invested.

Ratio / Principle

Till the applicant files a bail application through counsel, he shall not be arrested for a period of 30 days; prior to expiry of that period he must appear before the trial court through counsel and apply for bail, and the bail application is to be disposed of considering the principles of law enumerated in Siddharth Vs. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676, Satender Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I., (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I., (2022) 13 SCC 764, that the accused-applicant has not been arrested during investigation.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Avnish Saxena, J.; Order Date 7.8.2025) disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., registered as APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 24976 of 2025, filed by Chandra Kant Khemka seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 2147/IX/2017 (State Versus Anil Ghai and another), arising out of charge-sheet in Case Crime No.129 of 1999, Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura, including the summoning order dated 23.03.2017 passed by the C.J.M., Mathura under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. The applicant was arraigned during further investigation commenced by the Economic Offences Wing in 2003, as one of the directors of the finance company run as 'Raman Plantation', which worked as a non-banking financial institution; the informant had invested nearly fourteen lakh rupees in 1997 with assured return on maturity in 1999, and the EOW charge-sheet was submitted on 15.02.2017, nearly ten years after the 1999 FIR in which eight named persons were accused and five were chargesheeted. Holding that the matter pertains to financial fraud and duping of the informant of his invested money, the Court found it not a fit case to entertain the quashing application. However, protecting the applicant till he filed a bail application, the Court directed that he shall not be arrested for 30 days, within which he must appear before the trial court through counsel and apply for bail, the bail application to be disposed of considering the principles in Siddharth Vs. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676, Satender Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I., (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I., (2022) 13 SCC 764, that the accused-applicant had not been arrested during investigation.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133524

Court No. - 71

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24976 of 2025

Applicant :- Chandra Kant Khemka Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Vashisth Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J.

Sri Sunil Vashisth, learned counsel for the applicant files supplementary affidavit annexing statement given by the witnesses during the course of investigation, the same is taken on record.

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 2147/IX/2017 (State Versus Anil Ghai and another) arising out of charge-sheet in Case Crime No.129 of 1999, Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura including the summoning order dated 23.03.2017 passed by C.J.M. Mathura under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that informant of the Case Crime No.70 of 1999 lodged F.I.R. against eight named persons. During investigation first five accused have been chargesheeted and the investigation was continuing against remaining accused. He has further submitted that accused no.5, Ruchi Goel has filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.5533 of 2001, wherein proceeding arising out of Case Crime No.53/IX/2001 (State Versus Bhikki Lal) has been stayed till further orders in respect of Ruchi Goel. He further submits that in the year 2003, the Economic Offences Wing has started further investigating in the matter and the name of the present accusedapplicant came into picture being one of the director of the Finance Company, run in the name of Raman Plantation. The company was working as non-banking financial institution. The informant has invested nearly fourteen lakh rupees in the company in the year 1997 with assured return on maturity in the year 1999. The chargesheet is submitted by EOW on 15.02.2017. It is further contended that accused-applicant does not have any active role in the company and is of 59 years of age with old age related ailments.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the applicant.

Considering the fact that the matter is of year 1999, wherein eight specifically named persons have been made accused in the case, the charge-sheet is submitted against five accused. Further investigation took nearly 10 year in submission of charge-sheet in year 2017, the accused-applicant came to know about the pendency of trial in first week of May, 2025 and apprehending arrest in the matter.

This Court does not find it to be a fit case to entertain as the matter pertains to financial fraud and duping the informant of his money invested.

At this juncture, learned counsel prayed that the interest of the applicant may be protected till he files the bail application through counsel, hence, the accused-applicant shall not be arrested for a period of 30 days. Prior to expiry of the aforesaid period, he should appear before the trial court through counsel and apply for bail. The bail application is to be disposed of considering the principles of law enumerated in the cases of Siddharth Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676 , Satender Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. reported in (2022) 13 SCC 764 , that the accused-applicant has not been arrested during investigation.

Hence, application is disposed of accordingly.

Order Date :- 7.8.2025

MN/-

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

Digitally signed by :- MAHENDRA NATH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad