JUDGMENT : 1. At inception of argument, the learned A.G.A. has raised preliminary objection that learned counsel for the applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 8.8.2023 thereby seeking the permission of this Court, for correction in the affidavit, which has been filed in support of the instant application. 2. He submits that Chapter IV Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 1952') provides that 'no interlineation, alteration or erasures shall be made in an affidavit after it has been sworn'. He added that there is a specific bar for any correction, alteration, etc in all affidavits filed before this Court and, therefore, it is not open for any of the applicant or petitioner or the person who has sworn in the affidavit, to subsequently ask for any change, in the affidavit and, therefore, submission is that the applicant may not be permitted to correct the affidavit and, therefore, the instant application may be dismissed on this ground alone. 3. Replying the aforesaid objections, the counsel for the applicant submits that the provisions of oath or affirmation by a deponent, has been prescribed under Chapter IV Rule 17 of Rules 1952 which speaks in consonance with the provisions of the Indian Oaths Act, 1873, which was later on repealed and the Oaths Act, 1969 was promulgated. He submits that section 297 of Cr.P.C. says about the authorities before whom, the affidavits, may be sworn. Section 297 of Cr.P.C. are quoted hereinunder:- "297. Authorities before whom affidavits may be sworn.—(1) Affidavits to be used before any Court under this Code may be sworn or affirmed before— 4 [(a) any Judge or Judicial or Executive Magistrate, or] (b) any Commissioner of Oaths appointed by a High Court or Court of Session, or (c) any notary appointed under the Notaries Act, 1952 (53 of 1952). (2) Affidavits shall be confined to, and shall state separately, such facts as the deponent is able to prove from his own knowledge and such facts as he has reasonable ground to believe to be true, and in the latter case, the deponent shall clearly state the grounds of such belief. (3) The Court may order any scandalous and irrelevant matter in the affidavit to be struck out or amended." 4. (3) The Court may order any scandalous and irrelevant matter in the affidavit to be struck out or amended." 4. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that sub clause (3) of Section 297 of Cr.P.C. provides that 'the court may order any scandalous and irrelevant matter in the affidavit to be struck out or amended', which shows the power vested with the Court to allow amendment or to struck off any fact or information from the affidavit. He argued that in Chapter XII, Rule 1 (2) of the Rules 1952, it has been provided that all corrections and alterations, in the affidavit, shall be initialed by the Oath Commissioners before whom such affidavit (or affidavits) is (or are) sworn in.' 5. Further added that Section 7 of the Oaths Act 1969 also says that 'proceedings and evidence would not invalidate by omission of oath or irregularity. Section 7 of Oaths Act is reproduced hereinunder:- "7. Proceedings and evidence not invalidated by omission of oath or irregularity.-No omission to take any oath or make any affirmation, no substitution of any one for any other of them, and no irregularity whatever in the administration of any oath or affirmation or in the form in which it is administered, shall invalidate any proceeding or render inadmissible any evidence whatever, in or in respect of which such omission, substitution or irregularity took place, or shall affect the obligation of a witness to state the truth." 6. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Malhotra Steel Syndicate Vs. Punjab Chemi-Plants Ltd, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 565, and submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that 'even if there is some slight defect or irregularity in filing of the affidavit, an opportunity should be given to rectify the same'. 7. Further placing reliance on a Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Associated Journals Ltd. Vs. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd, (2006) 6 SCC 197 , he has referred paras 21, 22 and 23 of the aforesaid Judgment, which are quoted as under:- "21. A careful perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent and Form 3 as prescribed under Rule 21 would show that there is substantial compliance with the said rule. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd, (2006) 6 SCC 197 , he has referred paras 21, 22 and 23 of the aforesaid Judgment, which are quoted as under:- "21. A careful perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent and Form 3 as prescribed under Rule 21 would show that there is substantial compliance with the said rule. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in an identical matter in Malhotra Steel Syndicate v. Punjab Chemi-Plants Ltd. has also opined that even if there is some slight defect or irregularity in the filing of affidavit, the appellant should have been given an opportunity to rectify the same. In the instant case, the same liberty was given to the respondent by the Company Judge as also by the Division Bench of the High Court. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Division Bench was right in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. 22. This Court has in a catena of decisions held that substantial compliance is enough. Rules are undoubtedly statutory and the forms are to be adopted wherever they are applicable. The rules relating to the affidavit and the verification cannot be ordinarily brushed aside, but then what is required to be seen is whether the petition substantially complies with the requirements and, secondly, even when there is some breach or omission, whether it can be fatal to the petition. In the instant case, both the learned Company Judge and also the Division Bench were of the opinion that there is substantial compliance with Rule 21. In Khaitan Overseas & Finance Ltd. v. Dhandhania Bros. (P) Ltd. a petition was filed by the Chairman-cum-Director of the Company. He annexed with the petition a resolution of the Board of Directors permitting him to execute necessary petitions, documents, applications, affidavits and to lodge a suit to recover dues from the debtor Company. This was held to include the authority to file a winding-up petition also. The affidavit accompanying the petition was signed, sworn and affirmed on oath in the prescribed manner. The court said that the affidavit conformed with the requirements of law. 23. We are of the opinion that the rules of procedure cannot be a tool to circumvent the justice. In fact, the rules are laid to help for speedy disposal of justice. The affidavit accompanying the petition was signed, sworn and affirmed on oath in the prescribed manner. The court said that the affidavit conformed with the requirements of law. 23. We are of the opinion that the rules of procedure cannot be a tool to circumvent the justice. In fact, the rules are laid to help for speedy disposal of justice. The learned Judges of the Division Bench have appreciated that the technical plea raised by the appellant regarding defective affidavit was raised after seven years of filing the petition. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant is raising the defence of technical plea to protect himself from the consequence of his default and this plea cannot be considered effective enough to review the order of advertisement. Assuming without admitting that the affidavit was not verified as per the Company Rules, the learned counsel has correctly submitted that if this objection was taken earlier the respondent would have cured the defect." 8. Concluding his arguments, he submits that omission of educational qualification in the affidavit is an inadvertent error, which would not prejudice the other side and that is not fatal too and, the same can be cured by way of filing supplementary affidavit and permitting the applicant to correct the affidavit, would avoid the multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, submission is that the preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A. may be rejected and prayer for correction made in the affidavit in support of the application may be allowed. 9. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the present application has been filed challenging the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.81893 of 2019 (State Vs. Sanjeev Agarwal) arising out of Crime No.0784 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 408 of the I.P.C., Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow. The preliminary objection is raised by learned A.G.A.-I that the Rules 1952 does not permit any correction in the affidavit placed before this Court, after it is sworn in. 10. When this Court examines the objection in the light of the provisions of Rules 1952 and as per the settled proposition of law, it emerges that the Rules 17 and 18 of Chapter IV of the Rules 1952 provides the provision regarding oath or affirmation by the deponent and correction in the affidavit. 10. When this Court examines the objection in the light of the provisions of Rules 1952 and as per the settled proposition of law, it emerges that the Rules 17 and 18 of Chapter IV of the Rules 1952 provides the provision regarding oath or affirmation by the deponent and correction in the affidavit. It has been provided under Rule 18 thereof that 'no interlineation, alteration or erasures shall be made in an affidavit after it has been sworn'. Bare reading of this provision shows that no affidavit can be corrected by the deponent after it has been sworn but whether this can be cured is the issue to be dealt with, in the light of the inherent powers of this Court as well as settled propositions of law. 11. Having at a glance on Section 7 of Oaths Act 1969, it is crystal clear that 'no omission to take any oath or make any affirmation, no substitution of any one for any other of them, and no irregularity whatever in the administration of any oath or affirmation or in the form, in which, it is administered, shall invalidate any proceeding or render inadmissible any evidence whatever, in or in respect of which such omission, substitution or irregularity took place, or shall affect the obligation of a witness to state the truth'. 12. Time and again, the Apex Court has also taken up this issue and in case of Malhotra Steel Syndicate (supra), it has been held by the Apex Court that the defects in the affidavit can be removed, if it is curable. This Court is of the opinion that Rules blatantly cannot be ignored but at the same time, this cannot be allowed to be a tool to circumvent the justice as the Rules are framed to aid the speedy dispensation of justice. 13. So far as the present matter is concerned, in the description of affidavit clause, the qualification of the deponent has been left to be transcribed, which, in opinion of this Court, seems to be a curable defect as that has no material or substantial impact on the issue or no prejudice is likely to cause to the other side. Meaning thereby that there are two categories of the defect in the affidavit. One can be termed as 'curable defect' and the second would be 'incurable defect'. Meaning thereby that there are two categories of the defect in the affidavit. One can be termed as 'curable defect' and the second would be 'incurable defect'. The principle thus enunciated that the defect which would not cause prejudice to the other ends or also would not substantially change the object for which the affidavit is given, are the curable defects and there can be no straitjacket formula so as to come to the conclusion but it would depend on the fact of the matter. 14. In view of the aforesaid submissions and discussions, the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the State, is hereby rejected. 15. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the affidavit clause as per the prayer made in supplementary affidavit dated 18.8.2023. 16. Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I & Sri Sanjay Kumar learned A.G.A. for the State. 17. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an FIR was lodged against the applicant and other accused persons on 24.11.2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., alleging therein that the applicant being one of the Directors, in collusion with the other Directors of 'Wealth Mantra Limited' conducted the business of share trading, Since 1995 and, during the course of business, he used to deposit the shares in Demat Account of the Complainant, which in fact was operated by the Wealth Mantra Limited and that has a stock of Rs.27, 91, 089.60 and the said amount was transferred from the Demat Account of the complainant into the pool account and the shares were sold out but the proceeds were misappropriated and even after several requests of the complainant for return of his shares, neither the shares were returned, nor the money in his account has been paid and when the complainant met with one of the co-accused, namely, Sanjeev Agarwal, he made false promise to return the amount but the same was not done. The matter was investigated in a cursory manner and the charge sheet was filed on 17.11.2022 and the magistrate took cognizance on 24.5.2023. 18. Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has no role of any kind in misappropriation of amount, if any, by Wealth Mantra Limited and only being the father of the 'Director', he has been implicated. 18. Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has no role of any kind in misappropriation of amount, if any, by Wealth Mantra Limited and only being the father of the 'Director', he has been implicated. He also added that the applicant is neither director nor any authorized signatory or employee of the company and he was never involved in any affairs or functioning of the company and the applicant has his own business and he had no interaction or contact with the complainant but the Investigating Officer, ignoring the fact that there is no 'mens rea' or 'actus rea' for committing offence by the applicant and without collecting the material evidence against the applicant, submitted the charge sheet and this fact has also been ignored by the learned trial court.. 19. He further argued that the complainant is using the criminal proceeding as a tool, for some amount, which probably is in dispute between Sanjeev Agarwal and the complainant and the applicant is being made scapegoat. He added that the applicant is of considerable age and because of throwing him to face the criminal proceeding, he is suffering hard. 20. During the course of his arguments, he has also pointed out that one of the accused, namely, Sanjeev Agarwal has approached the Apex Court by way of moving SLP (Cri) No.9285 of 2021, wherein the criminal proceeding pursuant to the FIR No. 784 of 2019 dated 24.11.2019, has been stayed on 6.12.2021. The order dated 6.12.2021 passed by the Apex Court reads as under:- "Applications for Exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment, official translation and affidavit are allowed. Issue notice. In the meantime, there shall be stay of the proceedings in pursuance to FIR No.784 of 2019 dated 24.11.2019 registered at P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh." 21. He submits that order of the Apex Court is very clear that whole proceeding arising out of F.I.R. No.784 of 2019 are stayed but the trial court is still proceeding against the applicant. Therefore, submission is that the criminal proceeding against the applicant is abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 22. He submits that order of the Apex Court is very clear that whole proceeding arising out of F.I.R. No.784 of 2019 are stayed but the trial court is still proceeding against the applicant. Therefore, submission is that the criminal proceeding against the applicant is abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 22. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there is serious allegation against the applicant for committing cheat and fraud, in collusion with the other two accused persons and after investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing the offence and, therefore, after collecting the substantial evidence against the applicant, the charge sheet has been filed and, thus, the learned trial court has rightly took cognizance and has passed the order for summoning of the applicant. Therefore, submission is that the applicant is not entitled for any relief. 23. Prime facie, there seems to be substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, the matter requires consideration. 24. Counter affidavit be filed by the State within a period of three weeks. 25. A week thereafter is granted to the applicant to file Rejoinder affidavit. 26. List thereafter. 27. Till the next date of listing, criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.81893 of 2019 (State Vs. Sanjeev Agarwal), arising out of Crime No.0784 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 408 of the I.P.C., Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow, shall remain stayed, so far as the applicant is concerned.