Proclaimed Offender Cannot Invoke Section 482 Through Power of Attorney, Rules Uttarakhand High Court
Uttarakhand High Court dismisses quashing petitions filed by an absconding accused and his daughters in a cheating case involving Patanjali Ayurveda and Divya Pharmacy, holding the power of attorney route impermissible.
The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital has dismissed two connected petitions seeking to quash FIR No. 0177 of 2022, registered at Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar, for offences under sections 420 and 506 of the IPC. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, sitting singly, held that an accused who has been declared a proclaimed offender and is absconding cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure through a power of attorney holder. The court also found sufficient material on the charge-sheet to proceed against both the principal accused, Rakesh Mehra, and his daughters, Anushka Arora and Madhvi Mehra, who were chargesheeted for offences under sections 420, 506, and 120B IPC. All interim orders protecting the petitioners were vacated.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The FIR was lodged on 7 June 2022 by a representative of “Divya Pharmacy” and “Patanjali Ayurveda Limited,” both situated at Haridwar, against Rakesh Mehra, the proprietor of two firms — “Shri Shivaji Global Export” and “Shiva Mahadev Overseas.” The complainant alleged that despite making large payments for various products, including edible oils and food items, Mehra's firms failed to supply the goods. The business relationship had run from 2007 to 2018.
Mehra's side countered that it was the complainant's entities that owed money to his firms, that Form ‘C’ required for tax exemption had never been provided despite repeated requests, and that the FIR was lodged in retaliation after Mehra threatened to expose the firms' alleged practice of importing goods and selling them as “swadeshi products.” The petitioners also pointed to an arbitration clause in their contracts, arguing the dispute was civil in nature.
After investigation, Mehra's daughters — Anushka Arora and Madhvi Mehra — were chargesheeted on 23 April 2023. The Judicial Magistrate (II), Haridwar took cognizance on 27 September 2023 and summoned them to face trial. Mehra himself never joined the investigation despite notices under Section 41-A of the CrPC. Proceedings under sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC were drawn against him; he was declared a proclaimed offender, and a lookout circular was issued. A separate charge-sheet was filed against him as an absconder on 5 December 2023, with cognizance taken on 19 December 2023 in Criminal Case No. 3419 of 2023.
Anushka Arora and Madhvi Mehra filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 159 of 2023, initially challenging the FIR and later amending it to seek quashing of the charge-sheet, cognizance order, and entire proceedings. Rakesh Mehra filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 135 of 2024 under Section 482 CrPC through his power of attorney holder, Mr. Akhil Arora, who is his son-in-law, seeking quashing of the charge-sheet and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3419 of 2023.
Both petitions had earlier been allowed by a Coordinate Bench on 5 August 2025. The complainant challenged that order before the Supreme Court, which on 18 August 2025 set aside the judgment and remitted the matter for fresh decision after considering the rival contentions in light of the charge-sheet, leaving all issues open.
The Legal Issues
Two distinct questions arose. The first was whether a petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by a proclaimed offender through a power of attorney holder is maintainable at all. The second was whether the proceedings arising from FIR No. 0177 of 2022 disclosed a cognizable offence or amounted to an abuse of process, given the long-standing commercial relationship between the parties.
On maintainability, the complainant's counsel, Mr. Raj Kishore Chaudhary, relied on the Supreme Court's decision in T.C. Mathai and another v. District and Sessions Judge, 1999 (3) SCC 613, arguing that only the accused person against whom a criminal case is registered can file a petition under Section 482 CrPC, and no third person can fight a proxy war on his behalf. He also cited Simranjit Singh Mann v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 280, to the same effect. He pointed out that Mehra had neither joined the investigation nor appeared before the Trial Court, that the trial had been on hold since 2023, and that the investigating officer had collected documentary evidence — including bank statements and a Chartered Accountant's report — showing that crores of rupees were siphoned into the daughters' accounts after the FIR was lodged.
Senior counsel Mr. U.K. Uniyal, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the petition was maintainable through a power of attorney holder and that the dispute was civil in nature. He relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC Online SC 171, Naresh Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC Online 268, Randheer Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626, and Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, 2023 SCC Online SC 90, to contend that where a dispute is essentially civil, the High Court should not hesitate to exercise its inherent powers. He also argued that the existence of an arbitration clause meant the complainant should have invoked arbitration rather than the criminal law.
Senior counsel Ms. Pinky Anand, also appearing for the applicant, argued that the Section 82 CrPC proclamation was itself illegal because Section 420 IPC does not fall within the ambit of Section 82(4) CrPC, and that the consequential order under Section 83 CrPC was a non-speaking order. She relied on Delhi High Court decisions in Arun Kumar Parihar v. State of NCT, Delhi, (2021) 279 DLI 548, and Manoj Tandon v. State of NCT, Delhi, CRL MC 1961 of 2020. She also argued that Mehra had filed his own affidavit, sworn at Hong Kong on 19 November 2025, adopting the pleadings of his power of attorney holder, and that this cured any defect. She relied on the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in Mangal Dass Gautam v. State of Haryana, 2018 SCC Online P&H 8136, which held that a Section 482 petition through a power of attorney should contain special reasons for non-filing by the accused personally.
On the daughters' case, Ms. Anand submitted that the amounts transferred to their accounts arose from a family settlement, that the accounts were frozen on the basis of a forged letter of the Cyber Crime Cell, and that there was no material in the witnesses' statements to show the daughters had any criminal conspiracy with their father prior to the FIR.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Thapliyal addressed the maintainability question first and held squarely against Rakesh Mehra. The court observed that it is settled law that an accused declared a proclaimed offender cannot seek quashing of an FIR or related proceedings without surrendering, and that a court will not exercise its extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction in favour of a person who is intentionally evading the process of law. Such an accused cannot execute a power of attorney in favour of a holder to invoke the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
The court rejected the argument that Mehra's affidavit sworn at Hong Kong on 19 November 2025 cured the defect. Justice Thapliyal was of the firm opinion that such an affidavit was of no use and was filed only to evade the process of law. The court also noted that neither the lookout circular nor the proclamation under Section 82 CrPC had been challenged by Mehra, which further undermined his position.
The court took note of the investigating agency's material showing that approximately Rs. 31.25 crore was transferred by Mehra into his daughters' accounts after the FIR was lodged — specifically, Rs. 7.29 crore into one account and Rs. 4.99 crore into another during the short period from 28 July 2022 to 6 August 2022. This, the court found, was sufficient material to proceed with the trial.
On the argument that the lookout circular was unreasonable, the court held that the process of a lookout circular is designed to ensure the availability of an accused during investigation or trial and to prevent circumvention of the judicial process. Given that Mehra had never joined the investigation despite Section 41-A notices, non-bailable warrants, and the High Court's own earlier direction keeping the lookout circular in abeyance to enable him to join the trial, the court found the LOC could not be treated as unreasonable. The plea that Mehra feared being implicated in other cases if he returned to India was characterised by the court as nothing but an attempt to avoid the judicial process.
On the civil-versus-criminal question, the court acknowledged the principle that the existence of commercial relations or a contractual arrangement does not by itself exclude criminal law. It held that civil and criminal liability can co-exist on the same set of facts, and that the existence of a civil remedy does not exclude a criminal one where the complaint discloses a cognizable offence. The court declined to meticulously appreciate the evidence or adjudicate its probative value at the Section 482 stage, finding that the charge-sheet — supported by audit reports, a Chartered Accountant's certificate, and bank statements — disclosed sufficient material to proceed.
The court also noted that the complainant's letter of 4 June 2022 had informed Mehra that Form ‘C’ for the financial years 2013–14 to 2016–17 had already been provided and had requested a reconciliation of accounts, but Mehra did not respond to this. Instead, his firm sent a letter threatening to malign Patanjali Ayurveda Limited in the national and international press.
Outcome
Justice Thapliyal dismissed both Criminal Misc. Application No. 135 of 2024 and Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 159 of 2023 as devoid of merit. All interim orders passed in both matters, including the stay on Trial Court proceedings and the protection from coercive action granted to the daughters, were vacated. The Trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations in the judgment. No order as to costs was made.