Absconding Accused Cannot Seek Shelter Under Section 482 CrPC: Allahabad High Court

Dismisses Mukul Jain & Priyanka Jain’s Plea Challenging Cognizance and Proceedings in ₹21 Crore Bank Fraud Case 
 
Law Protects Those Who Respect It And Abide By It; An Absconder Cannot Be Allowed To Short-Circuit The Legal System — Allahabad High Court in Mukul Kumar Jain & Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Application U/S 482 No.28882 of 2024, delivered a strong judgment refusing to quash the proceedings arising from the CBI’s prosecution of Mukul Kumar Jain and Priyanka Jain for an alleged ₹21 crore bank fraud. Justice Samit Gopal observed that the accused had deliberately avoided investigation and court proceedings despite repeated opportunities and that their conduct disqualified them from invoking the Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. The Court held, “Law protects those who respect it and abide by it. A person flagrantly violating law cannot be 
equated with a person following the process of law.” 
 

The case emanated from an FIR dated 11.03.2022 lodged by the Bank of India, alleging that M/s Mahaveer Forgings Pvt. Ltd., represented by Mukul Jain and Priyanka Jain, fraudulently availed credit facilities worth ₹17.32 crores. It was alleged that fake land-use conversion orders under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were submitted as collateral. The company later defaulted, and plant and machinery hypothecated to the bank were clandestinely removed. The FIR also alleged fraudulent foreign bills and misappropriation, causing a wrongful loss of ₹21,10,49,257.12 to the bank. 
 
After investigation, the CBI filed a charge sheet against the applicants under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Both Mukul Jain and Priyanka Jain were shown as absconders. 
 

The applicants approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, primarily challenging the order dated 01.03.2024, by which the CBI Court, Ghaziabad took cognizance of the charge sheet. They argued that the court lacked jurisdiction since the FIR was lodged in Dehradun while the properties were located in Meerut. They also alleged that this was a second FIR, contending that the proceedings were invalid and without territorial jurisdiction. 
 
Counsel for the applicants contended that they were not challenging the merits of the charge sheet but only the issue of jurisdiction and sought quashing of the proceedings. 
 

Rejecting the applicants’ plea outright, the Court held that the accused had “neither joined the investigation nor cooperated in the investigation and have absconded.” Justice Samit Gopal, taking serious note of the abscondence, remarked: 
 
“They are not entitled to invoke the inherent powers of this Court for seeking quashing of proceedings. They cannot short-circuit the legal system and provisions and thus gain advantage.” The Court recorded that both applicants remained absconders during the entire course of investigation and failed to appear before the trial court despite issuance of non-bailable warrants. Importantly, the Court noted: 
 
“It is not the case that the applicants were unaware of the present case and proceedings against them, but from records, it appears that they were well aware of the case and proceedings against them and even then, they chose to abscond and not join the proceedings at any stage.” 
 
  Further, the Court observed: 
 “The applicants are not even in the country and are outside the country. They cannot now claim equity.” 
 
  It was also noted that the Red Corner Notice had been issued against Mukul Jain and Priyanka Jain and extradition proceedings were pending before UAE authorities. 
 
On the jurisdiction issue, the Court clarified: 
 
“The argument that the present FIR is a second FIR is fallacious. No previous FIR on the present 
issue and subject matter has been lodged.” 
 
 The Court emphasized that the order of cognizance was upheld by the revisional court after hearing all objections, and the present challenge was an attempt to re-agitate a concluded issue. 
 

The Court underlined that Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked routinely or to frustrate lawful investigations and prosecutions: 
 
“Inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and cannot be exercised in a routine manner, much less for the convenience of the accused.” 
 
 The Court found that the accused had shown no bona fide reason for not participating in the investigation or appearing before the court, and that their approach to the Court was selective and abusive. 
 

Dismissing the application, the Court concluded: 
 
“The conduct of the applicants in not joining the investigation and not cooperating therein due to which charge sheet was submitted against them as absconders, intentional efforts to avoid the court’s orders, and the fact that the charge sheet is not even challenged on its merits, calls for no interference.” 
 
  
The High Court has sent a strong message that absconding accused cannot seek indulgence from the court while refusing to comply with legal obligations, especially when serious charges of cheating, forgery, and corruption are involved. 
 

 Date of Decision: 28th March 2025