GOPAL GOENKA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010145512026

2026:UHC:8117
JUDGMENT RESERVED on:25.08.2026
JUDGMENT DELIVERED on:09.09.2026

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No.1812 of 2026
(Under Section 528 of BNSS)

Gopal Goenka --Applicant
Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per: Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.


By means of the present C528 application,
applicant seeks quashing of the order dated
01.08.2026 passed in CBI Case No.10 of 2024, CBI vs.
Mohd. Ahsan & others, under Sections 120-B r/w
Section 420, 447, 467, 468 & 471 IPC, by the court of
Special Judge, Anti Corruption (CBI), Dehradun,
whereby the discharge application has been rejected,
as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid
criminal case.
2. The facts in brief are that in the present case
in hand the case pertains to Khasra Nos.436 Ga and
436 Ja, situated at Village Johari, District Dehradun.
The original area of Khasra No.436 Ga was 0.244
hectares, whereas the original area of Khasra No. 436
Ja was 0.489 hectares. The allegation against the
applicant is that he conspired with other persons to
increase the area of the aforesaid lands in question. As
per the material collected during investigation by the
local police , CBCID and then finally CBI, it transpired
1

UKHC010145512026

2026:UHC:8117
that the area of Khasra No. 436 Ga was subsequently
shown as 1.244 hectares, whereas the area of Khasra
No. B 436 Ja was shown as 1.489 hectares. It is alleged
that in the year 2001, Powers of Attorney were
executed by the original owners in respect of the
aforesaid properties. On the strength of the said Powers
of Attorney, 11 sale deeds were executed between
March, 2001 and June, 2001, whereby Khasra No. 436
Ga was transferred to the applicant and Khasra No.
436 Ja was transferred to the applicant's wife, Smt.
Ranjana Goenka.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant
at the very outset submits that the case set up by CBI
is beyond logic and common prudence inasmuch as
why the buyer i.e. the applicant will conspire with
seller and Tehsil authorities to manipulate the revenue
records. He argues that the FSL Report establishes that
the Khasra for Fasli Varsh 1406 (1998), was prepared
by Sh. Hira Singh Bisht, the then Lekhpal of village
Johri, in which he correctly recorded the area as 0.244
and 0.489 hectares, without any manipulation and
that thereafter the Khasra for Fasli Varsh 1407 (1999)
and 1408 (2000),was also originally prepared by the
same Lekhpal, in which he manipulated the said land
records to inflate the area to 1.244 and 1.489 hectares.
He further submits that in spite of the fact that there is
no expert opinion on the authorship of the forgery, the
CBI has itself concluded, on the basis of custody of the
original land records, that the forgery was carried out
by Sh. Hira Singh Bisht, the then Lekhpal, who also
submitted false Khatauni extracts with his Lekhpal
2

UKHC010145512026

2026:UHC:8117
Reports in the mutation proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further
submits that the alleged manipulation of the original
revenue records had already taken place before the
applicant entered into the transaction in the year 2001.
He vehemently argues that the prosecution material
itself attributes the manipulation of the original
Bandobasti Jild, Khatauni and Khasra records to Hira
Singh Bisht, the then Lekhpal of Village Johari.
Thereafter, the sale deeds were presented before the
Tehsil authorities for mutation. He further apprises the
Court that the mutation proceedings in respect of 08
sale deeds were undertaken in the year 2001, whereas
mutation in respect of the remaining 03 sale deeds was
undertaken in the year 2003. He argues that the
prosecution material itself records the role of the
concerned Lekhpals in submitting reports and extracts
of Khatauni showing the increased area of land.
5. He further argues that the subsequent buyer
from the applicant, namely Sudhir Windlass and
others, have themselves been exonerated by the CBI,
and no question of conspiracy with the revenue officials
arises for a buyer in the same position applicant, who
too was not even a resident of Dehradun on the date
the manipulations were carried out.
6. He also argued that during the same period,
the SIT (Lands) was constituted by the District
Magistrate which carried out an enquiry and concluded
that it was the sellers, i.e., Mohd. Ahsan and others
along with the revenue officials who carried out the
3

UKHC010145512026

2026:UHC:8117
manipulations. He argues that this conclusion has
been completely brushed aside by the learned Special
Judge, CBI. He submits that the learned Special Judge,
CBI has mainly relied upon the multiple sale deeds and
the mere reference to common pay orders across them
to conclude that the applicant is involved in the
commission of the offence, without appreciating that
these are not part of the substantial allegations. He
argues that the substantial allegation is manipulation
of the revenue record, for which particular persons, i.e.
Hira Singh Bisht, the then Lekhpal, stands identified
on the basis of the FSL Report. He further submits that
no independent application of mind has been shown by
the learned Special Judge, CBI, and the impugned
order dated 01.08.2026 is erroneous and
unsustainable in law, the reasons assigned therein do
not satisfy the principles applicable at the stage of
discharge/framing of charge, and no prima facie case
under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 447, 467,
468 and 471 IPC is made out against the applicant.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI
submits that the impugned order does not suffer from
any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error
warranting interference under Section 528 of the
BNSS. He submits that it is well settled principle of law
that at the stage of framing of charge/discharge, the
Court is required to examine only whether a prima
facie case and grave suspicion exist against the
accused and a roving or exhaustive enquiry into the
merits, credibility or sufficiency of evidence, or a mini-
trial, is neither permissible nor warranted, and the
4

UKHC010145512026

2026:UHC:8117
truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the
prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be
meticulously judged at this stage.
8. He vehemently submits that the investigation
conducted by the CBI has, on the strength of
documentary and forensic evidence, conclusively
established that the area of land comprised in Khasra
No. 436 Ga (originally 0.244 hectares) and Khasra No.
436 Ja (originally 0.489 hectares), Village Johari,
District Dehradun, was fraudulently increased to 1.244
hectares and 1.489 hectares respectively, through
manipulation of the revenue records by the then
Lekhpal, Sh. Hira Singh Bisht, after preparation of the
Khasra for Fasli Varsh 1408 (August 2000) and before
mutation of the said land in favour of the Applicant
and his wife, Smt. Ranjana Goenka, in the year
2001.He further submits that the Applicant is not a
bona fide third-party purchaser standing outside the
chain of manipulation, as sought to be projected in the
affidavit filed in support of the instant application. He
argues that the investigation has revealed that the
family of Mohd. Ahsan(original owner) executed two
Powers of Attorney in the year 2001 in respect of
Khasra Nos. 436 Ga and 436 Ja, deliberately omitting
mention of the area of land, in favour of Sh. Hari Nagar
and the applicant respectively and on the strength of
the Power of Attorney executed in his own favour, the
applicant himself executed 05 of the 11 impugned sale
deeds (in favour of his wife, Smt. Ranjana Goenka) in
respect of Khasra No. 436 Ja, in which the area was
inflated from 0.489 to 1.489 hectares. The applicant is,
5

UKHC010145512026

2026:UHC:8117
therefore, not merely a purchaser relying on revenue
entries, but himself the executant of the very
documents through which the fraud was perpetrated.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent-CBI
further argues that the submission raised on behalf of
the applicant that the manipulation of records for Fasli
Varsh 1407-1408 (1999-2000) necessarily predates and
is therefore disconnected from his purchase in 2001 is
misconceived and does not assist the applicant at the
discharge stage. The CBI's investigation, based on the
FSL report and the custody trail of the original land
records, has specifically found that the manipulation
was carried out after preparation of the Fasli 1408
Khasra (August 2000) and before the mutation orders
of 2001 i.e., within the very window during which the
Powers of Attorney and sale deeds relied upon by the
applicant were executed. Whether the manipulation
was in fact carried out in furtherance of a conspiracy to
which the applicant was party is a matter of evidence
to be tested at trial, and cannot be foreclosed by an
assertion of the applicant at the discharge stage.
10. He further submits that the reliance placed
by the applicant on the exoneration of the subsequent
purchasers, the Windlass family, is misplaced and does
not advance his case as the investigation has found no
association between the Windlass family and the
applicant, Sh. Hari Nagar or Mohd. Ahsan during the
year 2001, when the manipulation and the impugned
sale deeds came into existence. The applicant, by
contrast, is directly implicated as an executant of the
Power of Attorney-based sale deeds during the very
6

UKHC010145512026

2026:UHC:8117
period of manipulation, and stands on an entirely
different footing from a subsequent, unconnected
purchaser in 2005. He further submits that the learned
Special Judge, CBI, while passing the impugned order
dated 01.08.2026, has taken into consideration the
supplementary chargesheet filed by the CBI, the
material collected during investigation and the detailed
written objections filed on behalf of the CBI, and has
thereafter arrived at a considered finding that a prima
facie case exists against the applicant and therefore no
illegality, non-application of mind or perversity is made
out in the impugned order so as to call for interference
by this Court.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length and perused the FIR, charge-sheet, impugned
order rejecting the discharge application and entire
material available on record. Since, the offences lodged
against the applicant are very serious in nature and
prima-facie made out a case against the applicant, it is
essential for the ends of justice that the applicant
should be subjected to a proper trial. Moreover the
argument that a buyer will not manipulate or will not
conspire to manipulate the alleged land records has
some logical gaps as the buyer will be the direct
beneficiary of the manipulation more so when the
manipulation involves increasing the land size of the
property. Moreover as the alleged sale deed to transfer
the disputed piece of land was executed in the favour of
the applicant and his wife it raises prima- facie
suspicion against the applicant. The argument
regarding parity with the subsequent buyer i.e. Sudhir
7

UKHC010145512026

2026:UHC:8117
Windlass also does not hold any water as the role of
applicant and the subsequent buyer i.e. Sudhir
Windlass is entirely different. In a catena of judgments,
Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that High Court
should be slow in interfering with the criminal
proceedings, if prima-facie the case is made out against
the applicant. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
Others , reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531 , in its Para 12
has held as follows:-
“12. This court in a number of cases has laid down the
scope and ambit of courts' powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex
debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the
administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse
of the process of the court. Inherent power under section
482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised:
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court; and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide
have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution
and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically
laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for
the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading
to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court
would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent
powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.”
12. Recently, in the case of
Neeharika,
Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in (2021) 19 SCC
401 , it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that
criminal case shall not be scuttled at the initial stage.
Relevant sub-paras of Para 33 of the said judgment are
quoted hereunder:-
“ 33.4) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, as it has been observed, in the “rarest of rare
cases” (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death
penalty).
33.5) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR/complaint;
33.6) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial
stage;
8

UKHC010145512026

2026:UHC:8117
33.15) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the
allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable
offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits
whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a
cognizable offence and the court has to permit the
investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in
the FIR.”
13. After keeping the above principle in mind,
this Court is of the opinion that as prima-facie case is
made out against the applicant and the charge-sheet
has been submitted and the applicant was summoned
after cognizance, this Court cannot enter into merits of
the case at this stage. Veracity of the version of
prosecution can only be proved during trial, after both
the parties would adduce their respective evidences.
14. Accordingly, the C528 application is
dismissed .

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
09.09.2026
AK

AVNE
ET
KAUR
Digitally signed by AVNEET KAUR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=a82175252dc1a0f53f0e
245a1c11df9aa490cfd1403838bf
52f9acab4cc3a5b9,
postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=5BEC18DADE5468
8668187E4D722C2EDBFDAF35A
B2F676A551481BE62508FDDEE,
cn=AVNEET KAUR
Date: 2026.09.09 18:41:24 +05'30'
9