Dehradun: The Uttarakhand High Court on Friday declined to grant any relief to businessman Rakesh Mehra and his daughters, Anushka Arora and Madhavi Mehra, who are accused in an alleged multi-crore fraud case involving the supply of materials to the Patanjali Group.
Court Dismisses Petitions
A single bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal dismissed Mehra’s petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), along with the criminal writ petition submitted by his daughters. The court directed the trial court to proceed with the case in accordance with the law and vacated all interim orders previously granted.
Investigation Reveals Substantial Evidence
The court observed that the investigation had uncovered substantial material, including documentary evidence, bank records, and a chartered accountant’s report, indicating that the matter could not be treated merely as a civil dispute. It noted that the existence of business relations between the parties does not automatically preclude criminal proceedings if the available facts disclose a prima facie criminal offense.
The High Court also questioned the maintainability of Mehra’s petition, as he had failed to join the investigation and was declared an offender after a non-bailable warrant, proclamation, and lookout circular were issued against him. The court held that a person evading the judicial process cannot seek extraordinary relief through a power-of-attorney holder.
Arguments of the Petitioners
The petitioners argued that the dispute arose from business transactions with Patanjali Group companies between 2007 and 2018 and was purely commercial in nature. They contended that the agreements contained arbitration clauses and alleged that the First Information Report (FIR) had been lodged to exert pressure.
Opposition from State and Complainant
Opposing the plea, the state and the complainant submitted that the investigation revealed large transfers of money to the bank accounts of Mehra’s daughters after the FIR was registered. They maintained that the chargesheet was filed only after sufficient evidence was collected.
Court’s Ruling
Holding that the investigation had produced enough material to warrant a trial, the court stated that an assessment of the reliability or evidentiary value of the material was beyond the scope of its jurisdiction at this stage. It further clarified that the availability of a civil remedy does not automatically extinguish criminal liability when both arise from the same set of facts.
