Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Arti Kumari vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 23 May, 2025
2025:UHC:4349
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION No. 1001 of 2019
Smt. Arti Kumari ... Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
Presence:
Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vipul
Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Rajendra Singh Rawat, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent
nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for Respondent No.4.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been
moved by the applicant, Smt. Arti Kumari, seeking quashing of the
Charge Sheet No. 1A/2019 dated 29.05.2019, the summoning order
dated 01.06.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge
Vigilance/Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, and the consequential
proceedings in Case Crime No. 05 of 2019 arising out of FIR dated
17.11.2018. The FIR was registered under Sections 420 and 120-B of
the Indian Penal Code, alleging financial irregularities pertaining to
unauthorised employment and salary disbursement to the applicant
during her tenure at Uttarakhand Ayurved University.
2. The applicant Smt. Arti Kumari was engaged as a camp
assistant through Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited
(UPNL), an authorisedworkforce outsourcing agency of the
Government of Uttarakhand. On 27.07.2013, she was deputed along
with four other individuals to Uttarakhand Ayurved University (UAU)
as per UPNL letter no. 5015/RPO/UPNL/2013. She submitted her
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1001 of 2019----- Smt. Aarti Kumari vs State of Uttarakhand & others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4349
biodata, educational qualifications, and a handwritten joining letter to
the University's Account Officer, Mr. Santram Panchal, who
acknowledged it in writing and directed the processing of her
engagement.
3. Initially, she reported for duty at the main campus office of
UAU, Harrawala, Dehradun, and duly marked her attendance in the
official employee registers alongside other outsourced staff. These
registers were seen and signed by the Vice-Chancellor, Prof. S.P.
Mishra, Deputy Registrar Dr. Kumud Upadhyaya, and Assistant
Registrar Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, thereby validating her daily
presence.
4. Subsequently, in December 2013, as per the University's
internal administrative directions, Arti Kumari was assigned duties at
the Registrar's Camp Office, located at 205/135 SBI Colony, Mohini
Road, Dalanwala, Dehradun.
5. The University and its existence, formally recognised the
camp office, is validated by (i) telephone and internet bills, (ii) meeting
minutes of the Finance Committee and Executive Council, and (iii)
various administrative records. These documents confirm that the camp
office was an officially designated space used for administrative and
examination-related tasks.
6. Arti Kumari continued to work at this location till July 2017,
and marked her daily attendance in the designated registers at the
Registrar's residence. These registers, obtained through RTI replies
from UAU, again bear the signatures of relevant university authorities.
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1001 of 2019----- Smt. Aarti Kumari vs State of Uttarakhand & others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4349
Notably, she was even present during national functions like the 15th
August 2013 flag hoisting ceremony, and her presence was
documented in group photographs and verified by RTI replies from
UAU.
7. Throughout her engagement, her monthly attendance was
verified and forwarded by the University to UPNL, which processed
and paid her remuneration. The MoU between UPNL and UAU,
submitted under RTI, clearly stipulates that verification of attendance
and assessment of performance was the University's sole
responsibility. The employee had no role in initiating or certifying
these processes. Furthermore, Clause 8 of the agreement confirms that
the University was to verify attendance and pay UPNL, which then
paid its deployed workforce, including the petitioner.
8. From February to July 2017, the petitioner was assigned to
work at the office of the Additional Secretary, AYUSH, Secretariat,
Government of Uttarakhand. This posting was also officially verified
and documented by a letter from the Additional Secretary dated
08.04.2017, which has been annexed.
9. On 01.08.2017, due to personal reasons, the petitioner ceased
attending work, and the University formally surrendered her services to
UPNL nearly a year later via letter no. 596 dated 25.05.2018, citing her
absence since August 2017. Following this, UPNL issued a termination
letter dated 13.07.2018, discontinuing her deployment. No complaint
or adverse report was recorded against her during her four-year tenure
by either the University or UPNL, which was confirmed in RTI replies.
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1001 of 2019----- Smt. Aarti Kumari vs State of Uttarakhand & others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4349
10. Despite this, during an investigation in 2019 related to an FIR
dated 17.11.2018, the vigilance department accused her of drawing
₹6,42,280.81 as salary without attending duty.
11. However, documentary records, including verified attendance
sheets, University correspondence, photographs, and MoU terms, show
consistent attendance, official recognition of the camp office, and
approval of payments.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
13. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
has been falsely implicated in the present case, and the allegations arise
from an administrative lapse rather than any element of criminal
misconduct. It is further submitted that the applicant was not a regular
employee of the University but was engaged as an outsourced staff
member through UPNL. The responsibilities pertaining to her
verification and disbursement of remuneration rested entirely with the
University authorities.
14. It is further contended on behalf of the applicant that her
attendance and work were duly documented and verified by the
concerned authorities, and that no complaint of absenteeism was ever
raised during her entire tenure. It is also submitted that the Camp
Office, where she was posted, was formally recognised by the
University, and that several other similarly situated individuals were
not prosecuted, thereby indicating discriminatory treatment against the
applicant
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1001 of 2019----- Smt. Aarti Kumari vs State of Uttarakhand & others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4349
15. Learned counsel further argues over procedural violations,
including the grant of prosecution sanction by an unauthorised official
and the suppression of crucial documents (attendance records, RTI
replies, MoUs) by the State. She argues that the case involves no mens
rea, no fraudulent intent, and no foundational criminal elements. At
best, a contractual or administrative issue that has been wrongly
criminalised.
16. The State, through its Vigilance Department, alleges that Smt.
Arti Kumari illegally drew ₹6,42,280.81 in salary from public funds
between 2013 and 2017 without actually performing any duties at
Uttarakhand Ayurved University (UAU). It is claimed that she was part
of a broader criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, involving
collusion with UAU and UPNL officials to misrepresent her
employment status and presence.
17. According to the State, the applicant failed to mark her
attendance in official registers or biometric systems, both of which are
standard institutional procedures. Her name was either missing or
inconsistently recorded in the University's documentation. The so-
called "Registrar's Camp Office," where she claims to have worked,
was not formally recognised as an authorised work location under
University staffing protocols.
18. Learned Counsel for the State argues that no sanctioned post
of "Camp Assistant" existed and that the applicant's engagement did
not follow any proper recruitment process. It was further contended
that the applicant, despite being overqualified for the Group-D role,
never performed the assigned duties and falsely benefited from a public
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1001 of 2019----- Smt. Aarti Kumari vs State of Uttarakhand & others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4349
salary, thereby committing an offence under Section 420 IPC
(cheating).
19. Lastly, the State asserts that sufficient prima facie material has
been collected to warrant trial and that the applicant's petition under
Section 482 CrPC is a premature attempt to halt lawful prosecution. It
is argued that disputed facts, especially concerning presence or
absence, require evidentiary scrutiny at trial and cannot be resolved
summarily.
20. Upon a meticulous examination of the factual record, legal
contentions, documentary evidence, procedural history, and applicable
jurisprudence, this Court is firmly of the view that the criminal
proceedings initiated against the applicant, Smt. Arti Kumari, are
manifestly unjust, legally unsustainable, and amount to an abuse of the
process of law.
21. The core allegationthat the applicant fraudulently drew salary
without attending workis thoroughly rebutted by official attendance
registers, certified RTI responses, and University correspondence, all
of which conclusively establish her deployment, daily attendance, and
performance of duties, both at the University campus and at the duly
recognised Registrar's Camp Office. These records are further
corroborated by the signatures of senior institutional functionaries and
have not been contradicted by any cogent material from the
prosecution.
22. Moreover, the contractual and administrative framework
under which the applicant operated places the responsibility for
attendance verification and salary disbursement entirely on the
6
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1001 of 2019----- Smt. Aarti Kumari vs State of Uttarakhand & others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4349
University and UPNL. The applicant, as an outsourced staff member,
had no control over payroll or institutional reporting systems. The
dispute, if any, is civil or service-related in nature and does not disclose
the intentional deception or dishonest inducement essential for offences
under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC.
23. The non-production of vital exculpatory evidence by the
prosecution, coupled with a procedurally defective sanction for
prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, renders the entire
proceedings tainted with irregularity and illegality. Additionally, the
selective prosecution of the applicant, while other similarly deputed
employees remain untouched, violates constitutional guarantees of
equality and fairness.
24. This Court is guided by the principles laid down in State of
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 among others, which
authorise and indeed mandate judicial intervention where criminal law
is misapplied or misused for extraneous purposes.
25. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque (2005) 1 SCC
122, reiterated that if the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not
disclose a cognisable offence, the High Court can quash the
proceedings to prevent misuse of the judicial process. The court
observed that: -
"If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of
which cognisance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High
Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that there should be a
meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the
case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the
complaint and consideration of the allegations therein that the ingredients
7
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1001 of 2019----- Smt. Aarti Kumari vs State of Uttarakhand & others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:4349
of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High
Court to interfere."
26. In light of the absence of a prima facie case, the lack of
criminal intent, and the overwhelming documentary evidence
establishing the applicant's innocence, the continuation of proceedings
would serve no public interest. It would only result in harassment and a
miscarriage of justice.
27. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. She served for
over four years under a documented deployment, with verified monthly
attendance. No complaints were raised during her service, and she
ceased working voluntarily in 2017. The FIR was filed more than a
year later, and there is no fresh evidence except conjectural inferences
drawn from missing records. The selective targeting of the applicant,
while similarly placed individuals have not been proceeded against,
violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
ORDER
Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application is allowed. The Charge Sheet No. 1A/2019 dated 29.05.2019, the cognisance/summoning order dated 01.06.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge Vigilance/ASJ, Dehradun, and all consequential proceedings in Case Crime No. 05 of 2019 are hereby quashed.
Ashish Naithani, J.
Dated: 23.05.2025 ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F98 2, cn=ARTI SINGH Date: 2025.05.27 12:07:56 +05'30' 8 Criminal Misc. Application No. 1001 of 2019----- Smt. Aarti Kumari vs State of Uttarakhand & others Ashish Naithani J.