The Uttarakhand High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against businessman Rakesh Mehra and his daughters, holding that the allegations disclosed sufficient material for trial and that the Court cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal also held that a petition filed through a power of attorney holder by a proclaimed offender who is evading the judicial process is not maintainable.

The dispute arose out of long-standing business dealings between firms owned by Rakesh Mehra and the complainant entities, including Divya Pharmacy and Patanjali Ayurveda Limited. The complainants alleged that substantial payments were made for the supply of goods, but the promised supplies were not delivered, resulting in registration of an FIR in 2022 for offences including cheating, criminal intimidation and criminal conspiracy. Following the investigation, charge sheets were filed against Mehra and his daughters.

A significant issue before the Court was whether Rakesh Mehra, who had been declared a proclaimed offender, could maintain a petition through a power of attorney holder. The Court noted that despite repeated notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., Mehra had not joined the investigation and was also facing a lookout circular.

“An absconding accused cannot invoke the Court’s inherent jurisdiction through a power of attorney holder while simultaneously evading the judicial process.”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in T.C. Mathai v. District & Sessions Judge, the High Court held that the petition filed on behalf of the proclaimed offender was not maintainable and liable to be rejected on that ground alone.

On the merits, the petitioners contended that the dispute was purely civil in nature arising from commercial transactions and contractual obligations. However, the Court noted that the investigating agency had collected documentary evidence, including bank statements, audit reports and a Chartered Accountant’s report. The Court also took note of allegations that significant amounts were transferred to the bank accounts of Mehra’s daughters shortly after registration of the FIR.

The Bench reiterated that merely because a dispute has a commercial or contractual background, criminal liability is not automatically excluded. Where the allegations and material gathered during the investigation disclose cognisable offences, civil and criminal consequences can proceed simultaneously.

“The existence of commercial relations or contractual arrangements does not by itself bar criminal prosecution where the material collected during investigation discloses commission of cognizable offences.”

Finding that the investigation had yielded sufficient material warranting a full-fledged trial, the High Court declined to interfere at the pre-trial stage. Thus, both petitions were dismissed, all interim protections were vacated, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the case in accordance with the law without being influenced by any observations made in the judgement.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below.